APHC010042772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2493/2025 Between: 1. NAGGALLA DEVI,, W/O. N.CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 1125017 (ARUNDATHI SHG)OF KOKATAM VILLAGE, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT R/O. D.NO. 3/15, KOKATAM VILLAGE, KAMALAPURAM, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLIES, AP STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, D.NO. 10-152/1, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, SRI SAI TOWERS, BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT AT KADAPA 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. 2 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KAMALAPURAM, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. ...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 to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent in issuing Notification vide Roc.No.C/1628/2024, dated 28.12.2024 by inviting the applications for appointment of Fair Shop Dealer of Shop No.l 125017, Kokatam Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District is illegal, arbitrary and violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as a FP Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1125017 of Kokatam Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District as usual IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 of all further proceedings of Notification vide Roc.No.C/1628/2024, dated 28.12.2024 issued by the 4th respondent in inviting the applications for appointment of Fair Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1125017, Kokatam Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the notification vide Roc.No.C/1628/2024 dated 28.12.2024 inviting applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1125017, Kokatam Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the petitioner has been appointed as fair price shop dealer for the subject shop on temporary basis on 29.09.2017 and discharging her duties since then. While so, without cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notification dated 28.12.2024 inviting applications for appointment of permanent dealership. He further submitted that if such notification is allowed and any member is appointed in place of the petitioner, it not only affects the rights of the petitioner, but her livelihood would also be affected. He further contended that this Court, stayed the said notification by virtue of interim order on 05.03.2025, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the petitioner 4 cannot question the notification as she is a temporary dealer and the respondents have authority to appoint a permanent dealer. If at all the petitioner has an intention to participate in the notification, she can as well participate but cannot question the notification before this Court, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for the subject shop. While so, the 4th respondent issued notification dated 28.12.2024 inviting applications for appointing a permanent dealer. The said notification has been assailed on the sole ground that notification has been issued without cancelling the petitioner’s authorization and she is still continuing as a temporary dealer. The petitioner being a temporary dealer, will not have any legal right to question the notification for filling up the vacancies with a regular candidate. The authorities have made it clear in the appointment order of the petitioner that the temporary arrangement is up to the time of filling up of the vacancy on regular basis. Further, nothing prevents the petitioner from making an application pursuant to the said notification for selection of permanent dealer. 7. In view of the same, the petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference of this Court in pursuing the notification. As such, 5 this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The petitioner is at liberty to make an application for appointment of permanent dealer pursuant to notification vide Roc.No.C/1628/2024 dated 28.12.2024. Till finalization of the notification, the petitioner shall continue as the fair price shop dealer.” 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 21st January, 2026 RKS