APHC010167142020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10527/2020 Between: 1. P. SAI JAYANTH, S/O MANDHAVA RAO, HINDU, AGED 25 YEARS, D.NO 40-30-16 DHARMANAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORS OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORS OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. MR K SHANMUKHA RAO, AGED 40 YEARS, D.NO 36-96-4611, KAPPARADA, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.10527 of 2020 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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the Revision Petition RC.29/2019/CSC/1 filed by the petitioner vide proceedings Memo No.41/CS-1/2019 dated 02.03.2020 by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in R.P.No.4/2018CSR 7 dated 18.01.2019 as wholly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the spirit of the provisions of the Guidelines for Selection and Appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers under Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 besides being violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the selection of the 6th respondent to the dealership of FP Shop No.0386057, Kancharapelam, Visakhapatnam City and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 stay the selection of the 6th respondent to the dealership of FP Shop No.0386057, Kancharapelam, Visakhapatnam City pending the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.10527 of 2020 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the Revision Petition RC.29/2019/CSC/1 filed by the petitioner vide proceedings Memo No.41/CS-1/2019 dated 02.03.2020 by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in R.P.No.4/2018CSR 7 dated 18.01.2019 as wholly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the spirit of the provisions of the Guidelines for Selection and Appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers under Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 besides being violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the selection of the 6th respondent to the dealership of FP Shop No.0386057, Kancharapelam, Visakhapatnam City ….” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that both the petitioner and the 6th respondent secured equal marks in the written test conducted for appointment as Fair Price Shop dealer in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondent authorities. However, the 6th respondent was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0386057 situated at Kancharapalem Area, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam City. Aggrieved by the said appointment of the 6th respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent in Appeal Case No.18/2018/CSR 7. The said appeal was dismissed by the 4th respondent vide order dated 23.06.2018, confirming the appointment of the 6th respondent and further confirmed in a revision preferred before the District Collector & Revision Authority in RP No.4/2018/CSR7, vide order dated 18.01.2019. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4 VS,J W.P.No.10527 of 2020 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has produced a copy of instructions of the District Civil Supply Officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 08.12.2025, wherein it is admitted that both the petitioner and the 6th respondent secured 68 marks each in the written test. But, however, during the course of interview, the 6th respondent secured 9 marks, totaling 77 marks, whereas the petitioner secured only 6 marks in the interview, totaling 74 marks and as such the 6th respondent secured more marks than the petitioner and the respondent authorities have appointed the 6th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer. 5. In view of the same, this Court do not find any mistake on the part of the respondent authorities in appointing the 6th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer and the same need not be interfered with. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 09.12.2025 KGR