APHC010067672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3557/2025 Between: 1. KARRI SRINIVASU, S/O NARASINGA RAO AGE36 YEARS, OCC MDU OPERATOR, R/O D.NO.28-7-7/1, VADLAPUDI, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. ASSIST SUPPLY OFFICER, CIRCLE-ILL, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ECONOMICALLY BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (APSEBCWDC) O/O F.NO 401, VISHAL RESIDENCY, OPP VR SIDDHARTHA ENG. COLLEGE, TADIGADAPA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DIST. PIN -521134. 6. MR VARADHI SRINIVASU, S/O NUKA RAJU R/O D.NO.31-30-38, YOUTH COLONY, KURMANAPALEM, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. 2 VS,J W.P.No.3557 of 2025 ...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 order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring Endorsement issued by the 2ND respondent vide Rc.No.15/2025/S4 dt30-1- 2025 rejecting the petitioner's request to return the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TR 9247 (MDU) for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders for the reason that as if the petitioner has tendered his registration on 2-5-2021 as MDU operator as illegal and arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Endorsement dt30-1-2025 and further direct the Respondents to restore the services of the Petitioner as M.D.U Operator and grant the such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 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 to direct the Respondents to return the Mobile Dispensing Unit (MDU-Vehicle) vide Registration No. AP 39 TR 9247 by allowing the petitioner as MDU operator for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 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 to vacate the interim order dated 12-3-2025 passed in W.P. No.3557 of 2025 in the interest of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.3557 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring Endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.15/2025/S4 dated 30.01.2025 rejecting the petitioner's request to return the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TR 9247 (MDU) for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders for the reason that as if the petitioner has tendered his registration on 02.05.2021 as MDU operator as illegal and arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Endorsement dated 30.01.2025 and further direct the Respondents to restore the services of the Petitioner as M.D.U Operator….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 19.11.2020 the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.75 for Economic upliftment of BC community and for implementation of a novel Welfare self employment scheme and providing four wheeler Mini Truck Mobile Dispensing Units (MDU) for supply of essential commodities to the cardholders. In pursuance of the said G.O., the 2nd respondent vide order in Rc.No.412/2020/A2, dated Nil-12-2020 has allotted a four wheeler Mini Truck Dispensing Unit to the petitioner. As per the said G.O., out of the total unit cost of the Mobile Dispensing Unit, 10% of the unit cost has to be paid by the beneficiary as contribution and the balance 90% of the unit cost will be borrowed from the financing bank as per the agreed terms and conditions. Out of the loan amount only 30% of the unit cost, payable in 72 EMIs has to be borne by the beneficiary as loan component and the loan 4 VS,J W.P.No.3557 of 2025 portion pertaining to the remaining 60% of the unit cost will be provided as subsidy by the 5th respondent. As per the said proceedings, the petitioner contributed 10% costs as unit cost and deposited the amount of Rs.58,119/- in the Bank of Baroda. The said vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner vide AP 39 TR 9247 and EMI also credited to the petitioner’s bank account. 3. While the matter being so, unfortunately in the month of August 2021 the petitioner met with accident and sustained severe injuries and because of which he entrusted the distribution work to one Mr.Ravi and thereafter the respondent authorities have allowed the 6th respondent for running the unit. Immediately after recovery from his injuries, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 18.11.2024 through public grievance redressal cell with a request to return the vehicle in his favour. Pursuant to which, the 4th respondent issued an urgent notice to the 6th respondent on 23.12.2024 directing him to return the vehicle within 24 hours. Thereafter, the 4th respondent gave an assurance to the petitioner that his vehicle will be returned within 24 hours and believing the same the petitioner withdrew his complaint submitted in the public grievance redressal cell. Thereafter, the respondent authorities also shown his name in online status details and also in E-pass machine as MDU operator. But, in spite of the same, the present impugned endorsement was issued by the 2nd respondent on 30.01.2025 rejecting the request made by the petitioner to handover the vehicle on the 5 VS,J W.P.No.3557 of 2025 ground that the petitioner has submitted his resignation on 02.05.2021 to the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4. On 12.03.2025, this Court passed the following interim order: “...the 4th respondent is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 39 TR 9247 to the petitioner within a period of one week from today..” 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of the order dated 05.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.5025 of 2025, under similar circumstances, this Court has held as under: “….2. This Court by order dated 10.03.2025, suspended the impugned order in the writ petition. Thereafter, the interim order got extended till the next date of hearing. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.5, Civil Supplies Department, dated 23.05.2025, whereunder the Government has withdrawn the services of MDU operators, while allowing the MDU operators to retain the vehicles, which used for distribution of essential commodities. In view of the withdrawal of services of MDU operators, by virtue of the executive fiat referred to herein above, the cause in the present writ petition does not survive….. 3…...learned counsel for the respondent No.5 would submit that the respondent No.5 was appointed as MDU operator in respect of the fair price shop in dispute, thereafter, his authorization was suspended and the petitioner was appointed as incharge dealer in his place. He would further submit that after enquiry, the 2nd respondent by order dated 28.03.2024, imposed penalty for the irregularities committed by respondent No.5 and accordingly, the said amount was paid on 20.04.2024 by the respondent No.5. It is 6 VS,J W.P.No.3557 of 2025 the specific case of the respondent No.5 that suppressing the proceedings initiated against the respondent No.5, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim order. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court, the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner and the same is in his custody, the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner and the same is in his custody. He would further submit that despite order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, the vehicle is transferred in favour of 5th respondent. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. It is the specific case of the writ petition that he has paid certain amounts towards the costs of vehicle at the time of his appointment. Taking into consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, this Court feels that it is appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders as who is entitle to have the custody of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 39 TR 2247. It is further directed that the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and to the respondent No.5 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them, pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is forthwith directed to take custody of the vehicle in dispute bearing registration No.AP 39 TR 2247 till passing of the aforesaid order.” 7. In the said case, this Court took note of G.O.Ms.No.5, Civil Supplies Department, dated 23.05.2025, under which the Government withdrew the services of all MDU operators while permitting them to retain their respective vehicles. 8. In view of the above Government Order and the directions issued in W.P. No.5025 of 2025, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order, dated 25.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5025 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 VS,J W.P.No.3557 of 2025 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 22.09.2025 KGR