APHC010382702024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 20479/2024 Between: 1. MUNAGAVALASA DHANALAKSHMI @ BOTCHA DHANALAKSHMI, D/O. LATE MUNGAVALASA SARADA DEVI(ADOPTED PARENT) AGED 32 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. 1-41, MAIN STREET. MUNAGAVALASA VILLAGE. KONDA VALABA POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTORCUMDISTRACT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SRI SIVA PARVATHI SWAYAM SHAKTI SANGAM SHG, REP. BY ITS ORGANIZER SMT. MEESALA TEJAMMA W/O. ESWARA RAO, TEMPORARY DEALER OF FPSHOP NO.0118022 MUNAGAVALASA VILLAGE, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 ...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 appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in particularly 2nd respondent in rejecting my application/representation dated 03-11-2016 for seeking compassionate appointment as a Fair Price Dealer in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.0118022 of Munagavalasa Village Amadalavalasa Mandal of Srikakulam District by virtue of Order dated 13-10- 2023 vide DDIS.SR(R)NO.04/2018 S2 dated 13-10-2023 contrary to the Sub Clause (ii) of Clause 6 of GO.MS.No.4 Consumer Affairs , Food and Civil Supplies(CS-l) Department dated 28-02-2014 without having jurisdiction to decide my adoption for the purpose is as illegal, arbitrary. Capricious, colorable exercise of power apart from violation of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the order dated 13-10-2023 and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider the application dated 03- 11-2016 by appointing me as Fair Price Shop Dealership for FP Shop No.0118022 of Munagavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal of Srikakulam District in favour of the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 order vide DDIS.SR.(R).No.04/2018 S2 dated 13-10- 2023 issued by the 2nd respondent pending consideration of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice 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 grant leave to the Respondent No.4 to file Counter Affidavit and to 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 pleased to grant leave to file counter to the Writ Petition No. 20479 Of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N B CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. SRINIVAS AMBATI The Court made the following: 4 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in particularly 2ndrespondent in rejecting my application/representation dated 03.11.2016 for seeking compassionate appointment as a Fair Price Dealer in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.0118022 of Munagavalasa Village,Amadalavalasa Mandal of Srikakulam District by virtue of Order dated 13.10.2023 vide DDIS.SR(R)NO.04/2018 S2 dated 13.10.2023 contrary to the Sub Clause (ii) of Clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.4 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS- l)Department dated 28.02.2014 without having jurisdiction to decide my adoption for the purpose is as illegal, arbitrary, Capricious,colorable exercise of power apart from violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the order dated 13.10.2023 and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider the application dated 03.11.2016 by appointing me as Fair Price Shop Dealership for FP Shop No.0118022 of Munagavalasa Village,Amadalavalasa Mandal of Srikakulam District in favour of the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and pass...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Petitioner being an adopted daughter of late Mungavalsa Sarada Devi and late Mungavalsa Venkataramana Rao has submitted an application on 03.11.2016 after the death of her adopted mother on 20.10.2016 for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment as a fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.0118022 of Munagavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal of Srikakulam District by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 28.02.2014. As the said application was rejected by the respondents vide orders dated 13.10.2023, the present writ petition is filed. 5 4. The respondent No.4 i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer has filed a detailed counter affidavit duly stating that during the enquiry made by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Amadalavalasa in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner, it was submitted that the petitioner claimed to be the adopted daughter of late Munagavalasa Sarada Devi. As per the SSC Certificate, her date of birth was 28.08.1990, and the adoption was registered on 06.02.2015, at which time she was about 24 years of age. It was further submitted that, as per Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the age of the adopted son or daughter should not have completed 15 years. Since the petitioner was more than 24 years old at the time of adoption, the said adoption was not valid in the eye of law. It was further submitted that the petitioner belonged to SC community, whereas the adoptive mother belonged to Sistakaranam (BC) community. It was further stated that, based on the above facts, the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, which was dismissed on 27.01.2018 with a direction to approach the competent Court of law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Collector, Srikakulam which was also rejected on 13.10.2023, holding that the adoption was not valid. Therefore, the adoption of the petitioner was not legally valid under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and consequently, she was not entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment to the post of Fair Price Shop Dealer. 6 5. The respondent No.6, who was appointed as a temporary fair price shop to the subject fair price shop after the death of original dealer has also filed a counter affidavit reiterating the contents as stated by the 4th respondent. 6. On considering the submissions and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as a Fair Price Shop Dealer is founded solely on the alleged adoption said to have taken place on 06.02.2015. Admittedly, as on the date of adoption, the petitioner was aged about 24 years, which is clearly in contravention of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which mandates that a person who has completed the age of 15 years cannot be adopted unless a custom or usage governing the parties permits such adoption. No material whatsoever has been placed on record by the petitioner to establish the existence of any such custom or usage. Therefore, the adoption claimed by the petitioner cannot be treated as legally valid. 7. Further, the competent authorities, after conducting due enquiry, have concurrently held that the adoption is invalid and that the legal heirship of the petitioner is doubtful. The petitioner has unsuccessfully availed the remedies of appeal and revision, and the orders passed by the Joint Collector and the District Collector do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal method of appointment, the rules governing it must be strictly followed, and the 7 petitioner does not get any automatic or vested right merely on compassionate grounds. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for issuance of a writ of Mandamus. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 22.12.2025 SCS 8 279 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 20479/2024 Date:-22.12.2025 SCS