APHC010212752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10929/2025 Between: 1. SRI KATTAMURI VENKATA KOTESWARA RAO, , S/O KATTAMURI PURUSHOTHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0717031, RESIDING AT BRAHMANAPALLI VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA RURAL AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT NOW PALANADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GURAZALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT NOW PALANADU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, , PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT NOW PALANADU DISTRICT. ...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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc. No. 1355/26/2024-A dated Nil.01.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 2 VS,J W.P.No.10929 of 2025 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0717031, situated at Brahmanapalli Village, Piduguralla Rural and Mandal, Guntur District now Palanadu District, 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 suspend the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc. No. 1355/26/2024-A dated Nil.01.2025, by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price dealer for shop no. 0717031 situated at Brahmanapalli Village, Piduguralla Rural & Mandal, Guntur District now Palanadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.10929 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 respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc. No. 1355/26/2024-A dated Nil.01.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 & 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0717031, situated at Brahmanapalli Village, Piduguralla Rural & Mandal, Guntur District now Palanadu District….” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0717031 situated at Brahmanapalli Village, Piduguralla Rural & Mandal, Guntur District. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. b) While the matter stood thus, due to age-related health issues, the petitioner submitted a letter requesting leave for a period of one month. However, certain individuals belonging to the Dwarka Group were appointed during the said leave period to manage the Fair Price Shop without obtaining any consent from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated 29.07.2019 and 17.09.2024 to the 3rd respondent requesting him to reinstate as Fair Price Shop dealer, but there was no 4 VS,J W.P.No.10929 of 2025 response from the 3rd respondent. However, the petitioner received a notice from the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.1355/26/2024-G, dated 13.12.2024 directing him to appear before the 2nd respondent on 23.12.2024 at 11.00 A.M. In compliance with the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent on the said date. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that, despite his presence, the 2nd respondent did not give him any opportunity to present his case and on the other hand, cancelled his authorization vide Rc.No.1355/26/ 2024-A, dated Nil.01.2025. Challenging which, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on oral instructions has stated that the petitioner has initially applied for leave for a period of one month in the Month of June, 2019 on medical grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to submit any representation seeking extension of the leave and remained absent up to September, 2024. It is further stated that, as per available records, the 3rd respondent made alternative arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities to the subject shop. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.32 CA F & CS (CS.I) Department, dated 03.12.2018 revised guidelines, Clause XII, Sub-clause X, in case of medical grounds, the appellate authority may grant leave for a period of two months, duly making alternative arrangements; seeking leave 5 VS,J W.P.No.10929 of 2025 beyond two months shall be treated as resignation for the dealership and the appellate authority shall issue notification for selection and appointment and making alternative arrangements. 5. On perusal of the material papers filed by the petitioner as well as the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that, in pursuance of the notice dated 13.12.2024, though the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent, he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, and the impugned cancellation order was passed. As per the G.O.Ms.No.32 CA, F & CS (CS.I) Department, dated: 03.12.2018, revised guidelines, Clause XII, Sub-clause X, the appointing authority may grant leave for two (2) months duly making alternative arrangements and seeking leave beyond that two months period will be treated as resignation for the dealership and the appointing authority can issue notification for selection and appointment for making alternative arrangements. Though it is treated as resignation, the authorities have to follow the procedure prescribed with regard to resignation of the fair price shop dealer. 6. In that regard, this Court, in Chinnareddigari Sambasiva Reddy, S/o Ramaswamy vs. State of A.P. and others decided by the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (At Hyderabad) 1, categorically held as follows: 1 2014 LawSuit(Hyd) 740 6 VS,J W.P.No.10929 of 2025 “ 10. The Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 does not contain any specific provision for acceptance of resignations of the fair price shop dealers. 11. However, the Form of Authorization (form-II) contains Clause-17 which reads as under: The holder of this authorization shall work for a minimum period of five years unless suspended or cancelled by competent authority. Resignations etc., seeking to leave the dealership shall not be accepted within this minimum period of five years. 16. Ordinarily, no fair price shop dealer would like to quit his assignment. If such extra-ordinary desire is expressed by any dealer, it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to put the dealer on notice before accepting the resignation as, foul play by vested interests cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I cannot appreciate the action of respondent No.3 I purporting to ratify the hasty and unauthorized action of respondent No.4 without even trying to get the confirmation from the petitioner as to whether he has sent his resignation out of his free will or the same is secured by any vested interests by force. the failure of respondent No.3 to make an enquiry in this regard by issuing notice to the petitioner vitiates the entire action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in easing out the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership.” 7. Thus, as per the law laid down in the above decision, the respondents shall conduct an enquiry, duly issuing notice to the petitioner as to the reasons for his absence and shall pass appropriate orders. However, the impugned cancellation order does not assign proper reasons, and also does not establish the fact that a proper enquiry was conducted after issuing notice to the petitioner as contemplated under the Control Order. In the absence of 7 VS,J W.P.No.10929 of 2025 such due procedure being followed by the respondents, the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1355/26/2024-A dated Nil.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent shall provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, pass appropriate orders. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 24.12.2025 KGR