APHC010145112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8048/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK MAHABOOB SUBHANI, S/O. GHAN SAIDA, AGED ABOUT ABOVE 45 YEARS, R/O. TURAKAPALEM VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI / VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned cancellation of authorization orders in Rc.No.225A/2026 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article of 14, 19 and 21 and also violation of control order, 2018 Consequently, set a petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in FPS No.0725032, on 2008 as a IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8048/2026 SHAIK MAHABOOB SUBHANI, S/O. GHAN SAIDA, AGED ABOUT ABOVE 45 YEARS, R/O. TURAKAPALEM VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI / VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR THE TAHSILDAR, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT 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 Order or the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned cancellation of authorization orders in Rc.No.225A/2026-B dated 06.03.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article of 14, 19 and 21 and also violation of control order, 2018 Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in FPS No.0725032, on 2008 as a IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SHAIK MAHABOOB SUBHANI, S/O. GHAN SAIDA, AGED ABOUT ABOVE 45 YEARS, R/O. TURAKAPALEM VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI / VELAGAPUDI, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR THE TAHSILDAR, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned B dated 06.03.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article of 14, 19 and 21 and also violation of side the same by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in FPS No.0725032, on 2008 as a 2 permanent fair price shop dealer operating at Turakapalem Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.225A/2026-B dated 06.03.2026 by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in FPS No.0725032, on 2008 as a permanent fair price shop dealer operating at Turakapalem Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following order: Challenging the order of respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.225A/2026-B dated 06.03.2026, whereby the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price shop bearing No.0725032 of Turakapalem village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District was cancelled, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner was duly appointed as a permanent Fair Price shop dealer for the subject shop. The revenue authorities, on the alleged ground that the petitioner had diverted 15 bags of rice and was involved in Crime No.8 of 2026 of Medikonduru police station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) BNS and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, issued a show cause notice seeking explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 26.02.2026. However, without considering the said explanation, without conducting detailed enquiry, without recording any cogent reasons, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and without permitting cross-examination of witnesses, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 4 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the District Collector within 30 days from the date of receipt of impugned order, however, without availing the said statutory remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court which cannot be entertained. He further contended that the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds to bypass the said alternative remedy and the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and that he submitted a detailed explanation dated 26.02.2026 to the said show cause notice. 7. It is well settled that High Courts will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or if the statue under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a Writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In the present case, the impugned order 5 provides a specific remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector, Guntur against the order passed by respondent No.2, to be availed within the prescribed period by virtue of Control Order, 2018. 8. When the petitioner denied the allegations of the respondent authorities, it is the duty of the respondent authorities to prove the same. Perusal of the record shows that the authorities have not examined the mediators of the panchanama. In these circumstances, without examining the concerned mediators/panchayatdars, without conducting any enquiry in that manner and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, issuing the impugned proceedings solely based on the reports of the Tahsildars is unsustainable and is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Moreover, the petitioner has not pleaded any exceptional circumstances to invoke writ jurisdiction bypassing statutory appeal, such as a patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or a case of manifest injustice of such a nature that would justify bypassing the statutory remedy. The contentions raised by the petitioner, including the alleged non-consideration of explanation and violation of principles of natural justice, are matters which can appropriately be examined by the appellate authority. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition in the light of the availability of an effective alternative remedy. 6 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the competent authority, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 30.03.2026 MP 7 229 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO. 8048 of 2026 30.03.2026 MP