APHC010031332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1626/2025 Between: Mitta Satyam ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent not restoring the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop No. 0717055 of Pedda Agraharam Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur) is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, direct the 2nd respondent forthwith to restore the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0717055 2 WP No.1626 of 2025 of Pedda Agraharam Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur). 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0717055, Pedda Agraharam Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur now Palanadu District. Due to change in political scenario and ill-health of the petitioner, the petitioner made an application for grant of leave for 6 months from 05.09.2024 to 05.02.2025 and the said leave was not granted to the petitioner, but due to various reasons some dwakra group people was appointed in the place of the petitioner. It was submitted to the 2nd respondent that under the coercion of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Circle Inspector, the petitioner was threatened to apply for leave without ill health. Till now no action was taken by the respondents herein. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the letter of leave was forcefully taken from the petitioner and thereafter a notice was given on 08.01.2025 to show cause why the authorization cannot be cancelled. He further submitted that on receiving such notice, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 16.01.2025 to the concerned authorities stating that he had been running the shop for 37 years without any blame and that due to the pressure of Circle Inspector of Police and Mandal Revenue Officer, he had submitted leave letter on 05.09.2024 though he had no illness and inspite of such reply given, so far no favourable action has been taken by the concerned authority. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents placed on record the written instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurazala, Palanadu District dated 25.01.2025 and submitted that if at all the leave letter had been 3 WP No.1626 of 2025 obtained under pressure, the petitioner could have complained the same within a reasonably short period thereafter, but he had kept quite which shows that the leave letter had been submitted voluntarily. He further submitted that temporary alternative arrangements were made to ensure smooth distribution of the essential commodities and that due procedure had been followed by the authority by giving notice to the petitioner on 08.01.2025 and explanation given to such notice on 16.01.2025 is under scrutiny and processing. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not only the petitioner who is subjected to similar harassment, but several other dealers were put to such harassment by the very same authority and one such other dealer filed W.P.No.1624 of 2025 before this Court. 6. Perused the record. 7. When the explanation of the petitioner dated 16.01.2025 is very clear, it is astonishing that the same is still under consideration for scrutiny and processing. The letter of leave shows no reason for applying leave, that too for a long period. No prudent person, such as authorities working under a government, would keep the leave letter pending for about four (4) months. Even at the time of submitting such letter or subsequent thereto, till now, it is not shown that the petitioner has any valid reason for applying leave for such a long period. As per Clause XII (x) of the G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dated 03.12.2018, any leave for a period of more than two months would be treated as ground for cancellation of dealership. Therefore, the said provision cannot be used, as a tool in a back door method approach to cancel the dealership. In the present 4 WP No.1626 of 2025 case, the method adopted by the authority does not appear to be legal and cannot be permitted to be adopted. 8. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents authorities to continue the petitioner as dealer and supply the essential commodities to the petitioner forthwith, however, subject to the compliance of legal formalities. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date:17.02.2025 PNV