1 APHC010035012021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition Nos: 2419/2021 & 447/2025 W.P.No.2419/2021: Between: G. Pedda Hanumanthu(died) As Per L.r P2 and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. C JHANSI RANI 2. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2 APHC010008142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 447/2025 Between: Gangy Neelamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C JHANSI RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: The W.P.No.2419 of 2021 is filed questioning the proceedings dated 15.01.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) vide Rc.M.4437/2019 wherein the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer for shop No.1302031 situated in Irangal village, Kosigi mandal, Kurnool district was cancelled. 2. The W.P.No.447 of 2025 is filed questioning the proceedings dated 23.12.2024 issued by 2nd respondent (RDO) vide R.C.(M).1159/2024 wherein applications are invited to fill up vacancies of various fair price shops including 3 shop No.1302031 situated in Irangal village, Kosigi mandal, Kurnool district without considering the petitioner’s application dated 29.10.2021 for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and same and since both the writ petitions are interlinked, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for civil supplies. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the respondents have appointed one G.Pedda Hanumanthu (died) 1st petitioner in W.P.No.2419 of 2021 as permanent fair price shop dealer and upon the report of tahsildar, a show cause notice was issued dated 9.08.2019 alleging violation of conditions of the Control Order, 2018 and without conducting any enquiry, the 2nd respondent issued suspension proceedings vide Rc.CS3/312/2019 dated .09.2019. He further submitted that, questioning the said suspension order, the 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.16163 of 2019 which was disposed by this Hon’ble Court under its order dated 31.10.2019 by setting aside the suspension proceedings and further directed the 1st petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice and also directed the respondents to supply the essential commodities 4 to petitioner’s fair price shop till completion of the enquiry. He further submitted that, pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent again issued show cause notice by framing the earlier charges and the 1st petitioner had also submitted his explanation, however, without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under control order, 2018, the RDO has issued proceedings cancelling his authorization to the subject fair price shop vide proceedings dated 15.01.2021 and the same was restored under proceedings dated 15.03.2021 as per the interim directions of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.2419 of 2021. He further submitted that, as the 1st petitioner died on 09.09.2021 pending consideration of the writ petition, petitioner in W.P.No.447 of 2025 has come on record as 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.2419 of 2021 being legal heir. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the 1st petitioner died, 2nd petitioner (petitioner in W.P.No.447 of 2025) being a Legal heir, has made an application dated 29.10.2021 requesting the respondent authorities to appoint her as fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.4 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department dated 28.02.2014. He further submitted that, pending consideration of the said application, the RDO has issued notification dated 23.12.2024 vide R.C.(M).1159/2024 wherein applications are invited to fill up vacancies of various fair price shops including subject shop No.1302031, which is wholly unsustainable and would lead to third party interest, affecting the rights of the petitioner (in W.P.No.447 of 2025). As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 5 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter submitted that, the petitioner in W.P.No.447 of 2025 did not approach this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and suppressed the fact that W.P.No.2419 of 2021 was initially dismissed as abated. He further submitted that, only after filing the writ petition vide W.P.No.447 of 2025, the petitioner filed I.A.No.04/2025 in W.P.No.2419/2021 to set aside the abatement and came on record as LR of her deceased father. He further submitted that, in fact, she did not made any application to the respondent authorities for appointment on compassionate grounds and the application dated 29.10.2021 which is said to have to been submitted by the petitioner does not have any particulars like date of application, acknowledgement of the authority on whom the application was served. He further submitted that without there being any such evidence, the petitioner cannot question the notification issued by the authorities that too after lapse of 3 years. He further submitted that, even otherwise, the petitioner has not approached this court in time and only after issuing the notification for filling posts on permanent basis, she has filed the writ petition, as such the writ petition can be dismissed on the grounds of latches itself and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6 8. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions made in the cases, 1st petitioner in W.P.No.2419 of 2021 is the father of the petitioner in W.P.No.447 of 2025 who is appointed as fair price shop dealer for the subject fair price shop. When the 1st petitioner’s authorization was cancelled, he filed W.P.No.2419 of 2021 questioning the cancellation proceedings and the same was restored as per the interim direction given by this Court, pending consideration of the writ petition. After the demise of the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.2419 of 2021, the 2nd petitioner, being a legal heir came on record and also filed W.P.No.447 of 2025 questioning the notification dated 23.12.2024 issued by 2nd respondent (RDO) vide R.C.(M).1159/2024 wherein applications are invited to fill up vacancies of various fair price shops including subject fair price shop No.1302031, without considering her application dated 29.10.2021 for appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. It is well settled that an application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse to time and after the crisis is over. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the application made by the petitioner in W.P.No.447 of 2025 is not clearly visible as to when it was submitted and on whom it was served. Without there being any evidence to 7 that effect, the petitioner cannot say that she has made an application and further there is no material placed on record to show that she was running the subject fair price shop after the death of the her father (1st petitioner in W.P.No.2419 of 2021). Moreover, the application said to have been made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is of the year 2021 and the petitioner has approached this court in the year 2025 that too after issuance of notification dated 23.12.2024 for filling up of vacancies. On the very ground itself, the writ petitions can be dismissed. Hence, after lapse of 4 years, considering the petitioner’s representation for appointment under compassionate grounds does not arise and in view of the same, the petitioner cannot question the notification issued by the respondent authorities for filling posts on permanent basis. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, therefore, the writ petitions are misconceived and devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS