APHC010163872022 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: 10418/2022 Between: 1. MALLAMPATI ARUNA KUMARI,, W/O. HARSHAVARDHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT53 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 2-84/B, ANGALURU VILLAGE, IPURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS EX- OFFICIO SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET REVENUE DIVISION, ARUNDELPET, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, IPURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 5. T NAGANJAMMA, W/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. YADAVULA BAZAR, ANGALURU VILLAGE, IPURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in orally terminating the Petitioner from her dealership of the Fair Price Shop No. 0741002 of Angaluru Village, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 andin violation of the Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of Indiaand direct the Official Respondent authorities to allow the Petitionerthe dealership of the Fair Price Shop No. 0741002 of Angaluru Village, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District in pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pass an interim order directing the Respondent authorities to permit the Petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No. 0741002 in Angaluru Village, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District until disposal of the above writ petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 granted on 20.06.2022 in WP No. 10418/2022 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2022 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 To vacate the interim order dated 20-06-2022 granted by this honble court in Wp. 10418/2022 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. V SUDHAKAR REDDY 4 The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in orally terminating the Petitioner from her dealership of the Fair Price Shop No. 0741002 of Angaluru Village, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in violation of the Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and direct the Official Respondent authorities to allow the Petitioner the dealership of the Fair Price Shop No. 0741002 of Angaluru Village, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District in pass….” 2. The petitioner has been appointed as a fair price shop dealer for the Shop No.0741002 of Angaluru Village, Ipuru Mandal, Guntur District. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though the petitioner have been running fair price shop for the last 28 years without any remarks either from the concerned authorities or the card holders, on 26.04.2021, the 4th respondent under the political pressures of the local political leaders orally terminated the petitioner from the dealership of the said fair price shop without there being any specific reason for the termination 5 and also without issuing any show cause notice duly framing charges. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. When this writ petition came up for hearing, this Court has passed the following interim order on 20.06.2022: “….In view of the facts and circumstances and as the appointment of the 5th respondent as temporary dealer as seen from the record is only up to 02.01.2022 and as admittedly the alleged resignation of the petitioner is accepted without issuing any notice to the petitioner, there shall be an interim direction to supply essential commodities to the petitioner pending further orders….. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in pursuant of the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioner has been running the fair price shop and the said fact was also admitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner has already resigned as dealer due to ill-health on 19.05.2021 and to avoid inconvenience to the card holders the 5th respondent was appointed as temporary dealer and suppressing the said fact of resignation the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. Though it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner submitted her resignation on 19.05.2021, it is for the respondent authorities to put the petitioner on notice before accepting the resignation, as foul play by vested interests cannot be ruled out. Further, the respondent authorities have not sought any confirmation from the petitioner as to whether her resignation out of her free will or the same was secured by any vested interests by 6 force. Under similar circumstances, the combined High Court in W.P.No.36058 of 2014 held as follows: “….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 in purporting to ratify the hasty and unauthorised 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. As respondent No.3 has not properly exercised his jurisdiction in acting on the purported resignation of the petitioner, his action culminating in acceptance/ratification of resignation of the petitioner is declared as illegal and the impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. As the petitioner is inclined to continue as the fair price shop dealer, he shall be permitted to continue as such under the authorization held by him. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed….” 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer by allotting essential commodities to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 22.12.2025 MH 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 90 WRIT PETITION NO: 10418/2022 Date: 22.12.2025 MH 8