APHC010425582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22098/2025 Between: 1. SUMATHI, W/O. NAGARAJU, PRESIDENT REP BY THE SRI VINAYAKA MAHILA SHG, FAIR PRICE SHOP NO. 1081050, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. 3-145-6, SAPTHAGIRI NAGAR, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (ANNAMAYYA). 2. SMT. SARADA, SMT. SARADA, W/O. D. SRINIVASULU, SECRETARY REP BY THE SRI VINAYAKA MAHILA SHG, FAIR PRICE SHOP NO. 1081050, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. 3-1, N.O. PALLI, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (ANNAMAYYA). ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLE DIVISION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. SMT ARUNA, W/O. M. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. MADANAPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (ANNAMAYYA) 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL 2 VS,J W.P.No.22098 of 2025 OFFICER, MADANAPALLE DIVISION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. SMT ARUNA, SMT ARUNA, W/O. M. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. MADANAPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (ANNAMAYYA) ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondent 2nd in issuing the proceedings in ROC. Cl/1156/2025 dated. 23.07.2025 in restoring the authorization of the 5th respondent for Shop number 1081050, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District (Annamayya), without notice to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same by continue the petitioners as a fair price shop dealer in no. 1081050, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District (Annamayya) and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in ROC. C1/1156/2025 dated. 23.07.2025 by continue the petitioners as a fair price shop dealer in no. 1081050, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District (Annamayya), and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. P NARAHARI BABU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.22098 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondent 2nd in issuing the proceedings in ROC. Cl/1156/2025 dated. 23.07.2025 in restoring the authorization of the 5th respondent for Shop number 1081050, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District (Annamayya), without notice to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same by continue the petitioners as a fair price shop dealer in no. 1081050, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District (Annamayya) and pass….” 2. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are President and Secretary of ‘Sri Vinayaka Mahila Self Help Group’, were appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the year 2008 in the place of the 4th respondent as her authorization was suspended and subsequently, cancelled vide proceedings dated 18.08.2009 and ever since, the petitioners have been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. Aggrieved by the cancellation proceedings dated 18.08.2009, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor in ROC/C1/799/2009, which was dismissed vide orders dated 20.08.2010 and the same was confirmed by the District Collector, Chittoor in the revision filed by the 4th respondent, vide orders dated 10.02.2013. Challenging the order 4 VS,J W.P.No.22098 of 2025 passed in the revision, the 4th respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No.29809 of 2013 which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2024, challenging which the 4th respondent preferred W.A.No.139 of 2025, which was allowed vide order dated 18.03.2025 by setting aside the earlier orders dated 18.08.2009, 20.08.2010 and 10.02.2013. Further, the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent herein. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025, the 2nd respondent, vide the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2025, imposed penalty of Rs.28,425/- on the 4th respondent and restored the authorization of the subject fair price shop in favour of the 4th respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, though the petitioners were distributing essential commodities to the cardholders attached to the subject fair price shop from the year 2008, the 4th respondent, with a malafide intention, has not chosen to implead the petitioners herein either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal and has succeeded in obtaining orders from this Court in her favour. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri. P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 5 VS,J W.P.No.22098 of 2025 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 4th respondent, though is familiar with the fact that the petitioners are distributing essential commodities to the cardholders attached to the subject fair price shop, did not choose to implead them as necessary parties in the writ petition or in the writ appeal filed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent, with an ulterior motive did not implead the petitioners herein in the cases filed by her and had obtained orders in her favour. Further, the respondent authorities, having found that the 4th respondent failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the charges framed against her, imposed a mere penalty of Rs.28,425/- on the 4th respondent and restored the authorization of the fair price shop in favour of the 4th respondent. Hence, requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2025. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other side contended that if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2025 which were passed pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, they ought to have taken appropriate steps before the Hon’ble Division Bench by way of filing a review petition or any other suitable application, but they ought not to have filed the present writ petition as they do not have any right to challenge the proceedings dated 23.07.2025. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6 VS,J W.P.No.22098 of 2025 8. Admittedly, the petitioners herein were appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop in the year 2008 as the authorization of the 4th respondent herein was suspended. Thereafter, the authorization of the 4th respondent was cancelled vide proceedings dated 18.08.2009 which were confirmed in the appeal and as well as the revision filed by her before the Joint Collector and District Collector vide orders dated 20.08.2010 and 10.02.2013. Challenging the order passed by the District Collector dated 10.02.2013, the petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P.No.29809 of 2013) and a perusal of the material available on record pertaining to W.P.No.29809 of 2013 would go to show that the petitioners herein were not impleaded, however, the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2024. Challenging the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge, the 4th respondent filed W.A.No.139 of 2025 before a learned Division Bench of this Court and wherein, the learned Division Bench, vide order dated 18.03.2025, allowed the appeal and set-aside the cancellation proceedings dated 18.08.2009 and the consequential proceedings dated 20.08.2010 and 10.02.2013. The respondent authorities were directed to consider the case of the 4th respondent afresh and accordingly, the 2nd respondent, after reconsidering the entire issue, passed the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2025 restoring the authorization of the subject fair 7 VS,J W.P.No.22098 of 2025 price shop in favour of the 4th respondent, however, with a penalty of Rs.28,425/-. 9. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent has obtained orders from this Court in her favour, without even impleading the petitioners herein as necessary parties, though she is acquainted with the fact that the authorization of the subject fair price shop is in favour of the petitioners herein. Undisputedly, as rightly contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader, if at all the petitioners are very much affected by the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2025 which were passed pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Division Bench in the writ appeal filed by the 4th respondent, the petitioners ought to have initiated appropriate steps by filing suitable application in the writ appeal filed by the 4th respondent. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, as this Court finds no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 23.12.2025 Gss