APHC010000132026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 812/2026 Between: 1. TANNERU RUPASRI, W/O ANJANEYULU AGE 35 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER- OF SHOP NO.0817031, KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE BALLIKURAVA MANDAL, BAPATLA DIST.-523303 . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.-522237 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA DIST.- 522101 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA TOWN, BAPATLA DIST.52 3155 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BALLIKURAVA MANDAL, BAPATLA DIST.-523303 5. SMT TANNEERU NAGALAKSHMI, W/O SAMBASIVA RAO R/O NEAR RAMALAYAM TEMPLE, V.KOPPURAPADU VILLAGE BALLIKURAVA MANDAL, BAPATLA DIST.-523303 ...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 a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.H/521/2025 dt 6-12- 2 2025 cancelling the petitioner's authorization in respect of the F.P Shop No.0817031, Kopperapadu Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Bapatla Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned order dt 6-12-2025 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.H/521/2025 dt:6-12-2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No.0817031, Kopperapadu Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Bapatla Dist., by continuing the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.H/521/2025 dated 06.12.2025, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri MMM Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Ms.M.Thanmai Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Subbaiah Pogula, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. While reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though a different charge was leveled against the petitioner while issuing show cause notice, the cancellation order has been passed on a different ground. Further, the report of the Tahsildar vide in Rc.No.A/532/2025 dated 26.11.2025 was never supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. Without supplying the said document to the petitioner, the authority passed the impugned orders and based its decision on the said report. Though it is mentioned in the show cause notice that the inspection report was enclosed, the same was not supplied to the petitioner. In the explanation, the petitioner has categorically stated so that the said report has not been supplied to him. In the said circumstances, the order impugned is illegal and against the basic principles of violation of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 4 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that against the very same order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector on 12.12.2025. Once again, he cannot file a writ petition agitating the very same proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Singh V. Union of India1 held that the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. As such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that memo has been filed before the appellate authority not pressing the appeal on 29.12.2025. As such, learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot say that the writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when violation of the principles of natural justice is glaring on the face of the orders impugned, the writ petition is maintainable. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is impugned in the present writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector (CS), Bapatla. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a memo not pressing the appeal. There is no material available on record to show that the said appeal has been dismissed as not pressed. Once the appeal is still pending before the Joint Collector, invoking the jurisdiction of 1 AIR 1977 SC 898 5 this Court and filing writ petition does not arise. Even if there is any violation of the principles of natural justice, the appellate authority can take due note of the same and pass orders. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd2., held as follows: <The writ petitioner’s appeal before the statutory authority was pending. In that view of the matter this writ petition should not have been entertained.= 9. The Orissa High Court in Asian School of Business Management, Trust, BBSR Vs. Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (OPTCL) BBSR & Ors in W.P.(C) No.20659 of 20093 held that Law is well settled that Writ Court should not interfere in the matter where suit or any other proceeding is pending before the lower forum seeking self-same relief. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue her appeal before appellate authority by withdrawing the not-press memo. In the meantime, if by any chance the appellate authority has already passed any orders on the appeal, the petitioner shall file an appropriate application in the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 11.02.2026. JLV 2 (1995) 1 SCC 642 6 294 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 812/2026 Date: 11.02.2026. JLV