APHC010131812023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. PADAGALA RAMANA, S/O. SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. SANTOSH NAGAR, VT AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, H.NO.10 NAGAR, BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY, KANURU, BANDA VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. THE THASILADAR, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, DISTRICT. 7. ABOTHULAAPPALAKONDAMMA, W/O. NARAYANARAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. FP SHOP DEALER, FP SHOP NO.94, BC COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6598/2023 PADAGALA RAMANA, S/O. SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. SANTOSH NAGAR, VT AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, H.NO.10-152/1, SRI SAI TOWERS, ASHOK NAGAR, BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY, KANURU, BANDA VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE THASILADAR, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM ABOTHULAAPPALAKONDAMMA, W/O. NARAYANARAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. FP SHOP DEALER, FP SHOP NO.94, BC COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT RC,J W.P.No.6598 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PADAGALA RAMANA, S/O. SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. SANTOSH NAGAR, VT AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., 4TH 152/1, SRI SAI TOWERS, ASHOK NAGAR, BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY, KANURU, BANDAR ROAD, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. VIZIANAGARAM ABOTHULAAPPALAKONDAMMA, W/O. NARAYANARAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. FP SHOP DEALER, FP SHOP NO.94, BC COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM RC,J W.P.No.6598 of 2023 2 ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 5th respondent in restoring the authorization of 7th respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.1298/2018/A1, .M.28.02.2023 as Fair price shop dealer, fair price shop No.0281094 of B.C.Colony, VT Agraharam, Vizianagaram town and mandal, Vizianagaram District as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation to the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the proceedings Rc.No.1298/2018/A1, Dt.28.02.2023 issued by the 5th respondent and restore the authorization of the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 proceedings, Rc.No.1298/2018/A1, Dt.28.02.2023 issued by the 5th respondent in restoring (he authorization of the 7th respondent to the fair price shop No.0281094 of B.C.Colony, VT Agraharam, Vizianagaram town and mandal, Vizianagaram District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.No.6598 of 2023 3 ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of respondent no.5 vide Rc.No.1298/2018/ A1, dated 28.02.2023 restoring the authorization of respondent no.7 as Fair Price Shop dealer of FP shop No.0281094 of B.C.Colony, VT Agraharam, Vizianagaram Town., being arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. 2. Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for respondent no.7. 3. Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ petition would submit that consequent to registration of case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act against the permanent FP shop dealer (respondent No.7) the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer of the subject shop and eversince the petitioner had been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders. He would further submit that respondent no.7 made representations to the authorities for restoration of her dealership and questioning inaction in disposing of the representations, respondent no.7 filed writ petition vide W.P.No.10970 of 2019 wherein a direction was given to the authority to dispose of the representation and pursuantly orders were passed restoring the RC,J W.P.No.6598 of 2023 4 dealership of respondent no.7. He would further submit that questioning the said restoration orders, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18412 of 2019, which was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal and accordingly an appeal was preferred and respondent no.3-District Collector set aside the orders of restoration of authorization of respondent no.7. He would further contend that questioning the said orders, respondent no.7 filed W.P.No.12989 of 2020 and the same was allowed by this Court setting aside the orders passed by the District Collector and directed respondent no.4-Joint Collector to conduct independent enquiry, afford opportunity to both sides and pass orders afresh under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, 2018, on the report, if any, submitted for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. He would further submit that pursuantly notices were issued to both the petitioner and respondent no.7 and thereafter the impugned proceedings came to be passed without any reasons. He would further contend that the petitioner being the temporary dealer, falls within the meaning “aggrieved party” appearing in clause 20 and 21 of the Control Order and therefore, he is having the locus to question the impugned orders. He would further contend that 6A case is pending against the respondent no.7 and therefore, impugned order of restoration not only bereft but being contrary to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. RC,J W.P.No.6598 of 2023 5 4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, and Sri Bonu Rama Sankar Rao, learned counsel for respondent no.7, on counter, submitted that the petitioner, having been appointed as a temporary dealer as a temporary measure, cannot have any legal right to question the impugned orders passed for restoration of the permanent dealer. They would further contend that the authority, having heard both the petitioner as well as respondent no.7 as directed by this Court in W.P.No.12989 of 2020, passed the impugned orders, after considering all the facts and circumstances and the said orders do not warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that consequent to initiation of 6A proceedings against respondent no.7-permanent FP shop dealer, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer for supply of essential commodities to the cardholders allocated to the subject FP shop. 7. The impugned order clearly states that an independent enquiry was conducted, both the petitioner and respondent no.7 were given opportunity and accordingly orders were passed restoring the F.P.shop authorization of respondent no.7 vide the impugned orders. RC,J W.P.No.6598 of 2023 6 8. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondent no.7, a temporary dealer does not acquire a vested right to the dealership and therefore, cannot legally oppose the restoration of the dealership of the original permanent dealer. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to question the impugned restoration orders. Moreover, the impugned order further states that the petitioner though attended the enquiry did not submit any evidence. Therefore, the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE: 29TH day of January, 2026. RR