APHC010521202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1093 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:- D.L.-2 [3483] Palisetti Vasantha ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath Advocate for Respondents : GP for Civil Supplies CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RESERVED ON : PRONOUNCED ON : 14.10.2025 24.11.2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 31.07.2025, passed in W.P.No.16237 of 2025. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for shop No.0387040 at Railway New Colony, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam. On appointment as such, she was permitted to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders. The case of the petitioner was that she was permitted to continue to make the supplies till January, 2025, and the petitioner stood informed that respondent No.6 – Molleti Siva came to be appointed as fair price shop dealer by virtue of an order, dated 26.11.2024, 2 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1093 of 2025 which is in fact a consequential order pursuant to the order, dated 12.09.2024, issued by the District Civil Supply Officer, Visakhapatnam, appointing respondent No.6 as fair price shop dealer in his capacity as adopted son of Late Smt. B. Pydithallamma, who was the earlier dealer of the said fair price shop No.0387040 of Railway New Colony, Circle II, Visakhapatnam. 3. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that since the petitioner had not challenged the order of termination, terminating her arrangement as a temporary fair price shop dealer, the petitioner had no right to challenge the appointment of respondent No.6 and the petition was thus held not to be maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the view expressed by the learned single Judge was unsustainable inasmuch as she had an independent right of consideration for appointment on substantive basis and ought to have been so considered while appointing the fair price shop dealer for which she was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that the compassionate appointment has been ordered presuming that respondent No.6 was the adopted son of Late Smt. B. Pydithallamma. However, our attention has been drawn to a Will, dated 25.04.2013, allegedly executed by Late Smt. B. Pydithallamma, in which respondent No.6 is stated to be the son of her sister. 3 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1093 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if that were the case, no benefit ought to have been conferred upon respondent No.6 as the official authorities had not verified the factum of adoption whether it was legal and sustainable before granting any benefit in his favour. 7. Another issue that has been highlighted is the fact that respondent No.6 had crossed the upper age limit of 40 years on the date when Late Smt. B. Pydithallamma had passed away. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, would submit that there was a Government Order i.e. G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.12.2018, issued whereby an amendment was incorporated in regard to upper age limit relaxing it from 40 years to 50 years insofar as the age is concerned and, therefore, it is urged that respondent No.6 was within age. 9. Although an effort was made by learned counsel for the appellant to suggest that the amendment will act prospectively and not retrospectively, we feel that, at this stage, it may not be necessary perhaps to go into the aforementioned issues and deem it proper to remand the matter to learned single Judge who would consider all the facts. 10. We are of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the order of termination which she says was never issued specifically, yet the petitioner could claim a right of consideration for appointment on substantive basis as a fair price shop dealer in regard to the 4 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1093 of 2025 said dealership and therefore did have a right to challenge the appointment of respondent No.6 as such. 11. We, accordingly, allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the judgment and order impugned, dated 31.07.2025, and remand the matter to learned single Judge having roster for consideration afresh. 12. Registry to list W.P.No.16237 of 2025 before the learned single Judge having roster on 04.12.2025. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 5 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1093 of 2025 78 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.A.No.1093 of 2025 Dt: 24.11.2025 kbs