APHC010067862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3559/2025 Between: 1. URIMELLA ANARKALI, D/O NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF D.NO.45/41-A, KANCHIPAATIVANDLAPALLI, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS-I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR / REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPET, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. SRI SYED ABDUL RAHEEM, S/O SALAM SYED, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, RESIDENT OF D.NO.27/22, CHEEKATIPALLI H/O SIDDAREDDIGARIPALLI VILLAGE, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, 2 VS,J W.P.No.3559 of 2025 ANNAMAYYA 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 topleased to issue Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the S'-d respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146008, situated in Siddareddigaripalli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District by ignoring the selection of petitioner in the notification vide Ref/767/2017, dated 23-10-2017 issued by respondent is illegal, arbitrary and constitutional and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.4 of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS) Department, dated 19-02-2011 and well established legal position, apart from being violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the Notification vide Ref.No.C2/1785/2024, dated 07-12-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of selection of 5th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146008, situated in Siddareddigaripalli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the Notifieation vide Ref.No.C2/1785/2024, dated 07-12-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of selection of 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146008, situated in Siddareddigaripalli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Honourable court and pass 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 3 VS,J W.P.No.3559 of 2025 pleased to grant leave for filing counter affidavit in the Writ Petition No. 3559 of 2025 and to pass IA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.3 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.3559 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 Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the S'-d respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146008, situated in Siddareddigaripalli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District by ignoring the selection of petitioner in the notification vide Ref/767/2017, dated 23-10-2017 issued by respondent is illegal, arbitrary and constitutional and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.4 of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS) Department, dated 19-02-2011 and well established legal position, apart from being violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the Notification vide Ref.No.C2/1785/2024, dated 07-12-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of selection of 5th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146008, situated in Siddareddigaripalli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District and pass….= 2. Brief facts of the case are that originally, in the place of one G.P. Dasaiah, who is a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1146008 situated in Siddaredigaripalli village, T. Sundupalli mandal, Annamayya district, the father of the petitioner herein was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer vide proceedings dated 01.10.2000. 3. While so, the 3rd respondent, vide notification dated 23.10.2017, called for applications from eligible candidates for appointment of a fair price shop 5 VS,J W.P.No.3559 of 2025 dealer on permanent basis for the subject shop and pursuant to the same, the petitioner has applied for the said post and participated in the selection process. Accordingly, the petitioner’s name was mentioned in the list of selected candidates, but, as he was not being issued the appointment order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10963 of 2018 aggrieved by the said action of the 3rd respondent. However, the said writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 28.02.2022. 4. In the year 2024, due to demise of the petitioner’s father, one Smt. Razia Sulthana was appointed as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis vide proceedings dated 02.07.2024. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent again issued a notification vide Ref.No.C2/1785/2024, dated 07.12.2024 for appointment of permanent fair price shop dealers to the vacant fair price shops, which includes the subject fair price shop also. Pursuant to the said notification, the 3rd respondent has conducted selection process and issued a selection list wherein the 5th respondent herein was selected as permanent fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop. Aggrieved by the appointment of the 5th respondent as fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri. Vutupalli Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6 VS,J W.P.No.3559 of 2025 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was selected pursuant to the notification dated 23.10.2017, the respondent authorities have not issued appointment orders aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10963 of 2018, which was however dismissed for non prosecution on 28.02.2022. He further contended that without issuing appointment orders to the petitioner pursuant to the earlier notification dated 23.10.2017, the 3rd respondent issued a fresh notification on 07.12.2024 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the post of fair price shop dealers of various fair price shops on permanent basis, including the shop No.1146008 situated in Siddaredigaripalli village, T. Sundupalli mandal, Annamayya district. Thereafter, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the 5th respondent was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop, instead of the petitioner, which is arbitrary and illegal. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to allow the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop pursuant to the selection process conducted in the year 2017. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies admitted that the petitioner was selected as a fair price shop dealer pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2017, however, appointment 7 VS,J W.P.No.3559 of 2025 orders were not issued not only to him, but to all such selected candidates in view of the orders passed by this Court in several writ petitions filed by the affected candidates. He further contended that the petitioner, though has filed a writ petition (W.P.No.10963 of 2018) aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in not issuing appointment order, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner has not made any efforts for restoration of the said order. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the petitioner has not chosen to file the writ petition challenging the impugned notification right after its issuance i.e., in the year 2024, but has approached this Court aggrieved by the appointment of the 5th respondent. The petitioner has no right to challenge the appointment of the 5th respondent as the 5th respondent was selected for the said post after following the due procedure stipulated under law. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the entire material available on record. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner has participated in the recruitment process for selection to the post of permanent fair price shop dealer pursuant to the notification dated 23.10.2017 and his name was mentioned in the selection list. However, it appears that the said notification and recruitment process was challenged by few affected parties before this Court by filing several writ 8 VS,J W.P.No.3559 of 2025 petitions and as such, the respondent authorities did not issue appointment orders to the selected candidates and did not proceed further in pursuance of the said notification. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.10963 of 2018 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to issue appointment orders in his favour pursuant to his selection, however, the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.02.2022. Thereafter, until the present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent authorities in appointing the 5th respondent herein as permanent fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop, the petitioner has not chosen to take any steps for restoration of the earlier order dated 28.02.2022. 10. Having kept quiet for the past three years, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent as permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1146008 situated in Siddaredigaripalli village, T. Sundupalli mandal, Annamayya district, pursuant to the notification dated 07.12.2024 even without challenging it at the time of its publication. 11. In view of the same, this Court finds no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 VS,J W.P.No.3559 of 2025 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 10.12.2025 Gss