APHC010135482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. VILLA SRIRAMULU, S/O. PATTABHI RAMAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. D.NO.3 VILLAGE, P. GANNAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT AT AMALAPURAM. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AMALAPURAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, P. GANNAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 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, order or direction more particularly one in W.P.NO.8626 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8626/2025 VILLA SRIRAMULU, S/O. PATTABHI RAMAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. D.NO.3-270, NAGULLANKA VILLAGE, P. GANNAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ADDITIONAL TRICT MAGISTRATE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT AT AMALAPURAM. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AMALAPURAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, P. GANNAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in RC,J W.P.NO.8626 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI VILLA SRIRAMULU, S/O. PATTABHI RAMAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, 270, NAGULLANKA VILLAGE, P. GANNAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND I) DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ADDITIONAL TRICT MAGISTRATE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT AT AMALAPURAM. (FORMERLY EAST GODAVARI THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AMALAPURAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, P. GANNAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in RC,J W.P.NO.8626 OF 2025 2 the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order in D.Dis/B1/561/2023, Dated 29.11.2023 passed by 3rd respondent thereby imposing penalty of Rs.2,86,208/- for restoration of petitioner fair price shop No. 0447004, without considering his explanation in proper manner, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, without application of mind, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and against to the principle of natural justice besides violative of articles 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said order by directing the respondents to restore Fair Price Shop No. 0447004 authorization to supply essential commodities to cardholders and to pass s 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 pleased to suspend the operation of order D.Dis/B1/561/2023, Dated 29.11.2023 passed by 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to restore Fair Price Shop No. 0447004 authorization in petitioner favour so as to enable him to supply essential commodities to cardholders, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.NO.8626 OF 2025 3 ORDER The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, imposing penalty of Rs.2,86,208/- for restoration of authorization of the petitioner for F.P.shop No.0447004. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as F.P.shop dealer of the subject F.P.shop on permanent basis and ever since he had been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders. It is the further case of the petitioner that alleging variation of stock, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated against him and without considering the explanation submitted by him, the 6-A proceedings were concluded by passing the impugned orders imposing penalty. He would further contend that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind, in a routine fashion without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 3. Heard Sri Petluri Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Sri Petluri Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the impugned orders were passed without considering the explanation submitted by the RC,J W.P.NO.8626 OF 2025 4 petitioner, without application of mind and in a routine manner and a cyclostyled order was passed, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, justified the impugned proceedings being flawless and does not suffer from any procedural infirmity. He would further contend that the impugned order of the year 2023 was challenged by way of filing this writ petition in the year 2025. He would further contend that as against the impugned orders, an appeal lies to the Joint Collector, however, the petitioner without offering any reasonable cause or explanation, filed this writ petition, without exhausting the alternative efficacious remedy of preferring appeal and hence this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The impugned orders of the year 2023 were challenged by way of filing this writ petition in the year 2025, i.e. nearly 1 ½ years thereafter. 8. As per Control Order, 2018, an appeal is provided as against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer before the Joint Collector. RC,J W.P.NO.8626 OF 2025 5 9.Regarding maintainability of writ petition, the failure to exhaust an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to judicial intervention when the principles of natural justice have been violated. The rule requiring the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a self-imposed restriction on the High Courts' extraordinary jurisdiction, based on policy and discretion, rather than a strict rule of law that ousts the court's jurisdiction entirely. Courts have carved out specific, well-established exceptions where a writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy. These exceptional circumstances include:  Where the writ petition seeks the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.  Where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice(such as the right to a fair hearing or the rule against bias).  Where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or an excess of jurisdiction.  Where the vires of a statute or delegated legislation is challenged. 10. In cases where a clear violation of natural justice is demonstrated, courts can exercise their discretion to entertain the petition and provide relief, without forcing the petitioner to go through a potentially time-consuming and ineffectual alternative process. 11. In the instant case, none of the exceptions is neither pleaded nor contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only ground urged is that the explanation offered has not been considered, which could be a RC,J W.P.NO.8626 OF 2025 6 ground for canvassing in the appeal but not for bypassing the alternative remedy. 12. In view of the above, since there is abnormal delay in questioning the impugned orders and as the petitioner failed to give proper reasons justifying his action in bypassing the alternative efficacious remedy of preferring appeal for filing this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal. 13. 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 18th February, 2026. . RR