APHC010232282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11947/2025 Between: 1. SMT. RAJARAPU BALA ANKAMMA, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O BHARATAPURAM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIED DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VINUKONDA MANDAL, PALNADU 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 of 2 Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in restoring my Fair Price Shop No. 0743037 of Bharatapuram village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palanad District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and pass 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 direct the respondents to restore the Fair Price Shop No. 0743037 of Bharatapuram village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palanad District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: To declare the action of the respondents in not restoring the authorization of the petitioner in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0743037 of Bharatapuram Village, VinukondaMandal, PalanadDistrict, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 3 2. Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0743037 in the year 1996 and has been running the dealership without any complaints, renewing the authorization from time to time. While so, the petitioner went on leave for a period of two months from 22.07.2024 to 22.09.2024, upon alleged threats from the official respondents.Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 18.11.2024 to the 3rdrespondent-Tahsildar requesting restoration of the Fair Price Shop dealership. As the same was not considered, another application dated 25.11.2024 was submitted. Since no orders were passed, the petitioner made a further representation dated 11.01.2025 to the 2ndrespondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. However, no orders have been passed till date. Surprisingly, a show-cause notice dated 21.01.2025 was issued alleging that the petitioner did not resume duties after 4 completion of the leave period and had not taken charge. However, as a precautionary measure, the petitioner has also submitted an explanation to the said notice.In those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the authority concerned to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reported no objection for passing such orders. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite submissions of several representations to the authorities concerned, requesting to restore the authorization of the petitioner dealership, no orders have been passed. As the respondent authorities intend to pass orders on the petitioner’s representations as well as the explanation, this Court, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: 5 “The 2ndrespondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to consider the restoration application dated 11.01.2025 and the explanation dated 01.02.2025and to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if required andcommunicate the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 20.01.2026 ANS 6 223 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11947/2025 Date: 20.01.2026 ANS 7