APHC010114202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6180/2026 Between: 1. S SWETHA, W/O. S.VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1348046, GARLEDINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. 2. S. VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. S.VENUGOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. NOMINEE DEALER OF THE FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1348046, GARLEDINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO.2-17, GARLADINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 522237. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, NANDHYAL DISTRICT, NANDHAYAL, 518501. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE NANDHYAL DISTRICT, 518222. 2 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PEAPULLY MANDAL NANDHAYAL DISTRICT, 518501. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHAYAL DISTRICT, 518501. SMT. METTU SRILATHA, W/O. M.JAGSDISHWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. CURRENTLY APPOINTED AS THE FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. GARLADINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYALA DISTRICT, 518221. 6. SMT METTU SRILATHA, W/O. M.JAGSDISHWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. CURRENTLY APPOINTED AS THE FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. GARLADINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYALA DISTRICT, 518221. ...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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring assailing the proceedings in Rc.No.D/CS/369/2024, dated 27.01.2026 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well- established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and reinstate me as the fair price shop dealer 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 to direct the respondents continue me as the Fair Shop dealer by suspending the Proceedings in Rc.No.D/CS/369/2024. dated 27.01.2026 issued by the respondent No.3 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 3 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following: ORDER: Impugning the proceedings vide Rc.No.D/CS/369/2024 dated 27.01.2026, issued by the 3rdrespondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that earlier when the respondent authority concerned cancelled the petitioners’ authorization, the same has been assailed before this Court by way of writ petition and this Court disposed of the same specifically giving a direction to conduct proper enquiry. Despite such direction, the authorities without conducting enquiry in that manner, passed orders impugned, as such, the orders are liable to be set aside, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while justifying the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural 4 irregularity while passing the orders impugned. He further submitted that if at all the petitioner has any grievance against the orders impugned, the petitioner has to avail alternative remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector by virtue of clause 24 of Control Order, 2018. Further, there is no violation in passing the orders impugned and the petitioner can file contempt case under Contempt of Courts Act but cannot file writ petition once again. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Assailing the proceedings dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni (Primary Authority), cancelling the petitioner’s authorization which was confirmed by the Appellate authority under its order dated 28.07.2025, the petitioners filed W.P.No.22410 of 2025. This Court by its order dated 05.11.2025 has set aside the orders impugned therein and remanded the matter to the Primary authority concerned for conducting fresh enquiry by duly following the procedure stipulated under law and keeping in view the observations made in the said writ petition. The contention of the petitioners is that despite said orders, the respondents passed the present impugned orders without adhering to the directions given in the said writ petition, as such, the said order is liable to be set aside. The contention of the learned Assistant 5 Government Pleader for Civil Supplies is that when the authorities have violated the orders given by this Court, the petitioner can file a contempt case. Further, if he is aggrieved by the orders impugned, there is an effective remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector by virtue of clause 24 (b) of Control Order, 2018. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, there is some force in the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioners can avail effective alternative remedy by filing appeal before the Joint Collector. 7. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is not inclined to once again entertain the writ petition and adjudicate on the impugned proceedings. As such, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition. If at all, the petitioner has any grievance, he can take steps in accordance with law. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a liberty may be given to the petitioner for availing alternative remedy of appeal and a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the same in a time bound manner. 9. To meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to consider his request. The petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy of filing of an appeal before the appellate authority and the authority concerned 6 shall consider the appeal as expeditiously as possible not later than six (06) months from the date of filing of the appeal. 11. 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: 05th March, 2026 RKS