APHC010293492024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14728/2024 Between: 1. PATHIPATI VENKATESULU, S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA, ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER PILLALAPALLY VILLAGE, BRAHMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANADURGAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, BRAHMASAMUDRAMU MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 6. VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders passed in R.C. No. K6/188/2020 dated 13.03.2024 by the District Collector/2nd respondent upholding the orders of the Joint Collector passed in R.C.No. K11/2578/2019 dated 31.01.2020, as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and the set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer relating to the shop No. 1220015 of Pillalapally Village, Brahmasamudramu Mandal, Anantapuramu District, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 continue the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer relating to the shop No. 1220015 of Pillalapally Village, Brahmasamudramu Mandal, Anantapuramu District, by suspending the proceedings R.C.No. K6/188/2020 dated 13.03.2024 passed by the District Collector/2nd respondent herein, pending disposal of the writ petition, and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated 15.07.2024 in I. A No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.14728 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Assailing the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Collector/2nd respondent herein, confirming the proceedings dated 31.01.2020, wherein the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled on the ground of certain irregularities committed by him, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel representing Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. In elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite submitting a detailed explanation, the original authority/Joint Collector/3rd respondent herein, without looking into the material available on record and without considering the explanation in a right perspective, passed orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector/2nd respondent herein, wherein the Collector/2nd respondent also dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner without even considering the case on hand by applying his mind independently. If such order subsists, the petitioner’s rights will be affected and also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on counter, submitted that as the authorities have found that there are variations in stock and that petitioner has indulged in clandestine business, the authorities have rightly passed the impugned orders and there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the same. The authorities have dealt with the case rightly 4 by taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the Collector considered grounds raised by petitioner and as the petitioner has violated the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2018 and made certain irregularities in distributing essential commodities, passed orders rightly. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against such orders, there is a revision available before the Government. Instead of filing the same, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein this Court cannot look into the factual aspects. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if at all this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. On the alleged ground of certain irregularities committed by the petitioner in violation of the Control Order, 2018, enquiry was initiated for cancellation of petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization. The Joint Collector, who is the primary authority, passed orders having found that the petitioner has committed irregularities and thereby cancelled the authorization. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appellate Authority) by raising certain grounds. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that despite making several grounds, the Collector, in a mechanical manner, passed orders confirming the orders of the Joint Collector (primary authority). 5 8. Admittedly, there is remedy available to the petitioner to file revision before the Government. There are certain factual issues which have to be looked into while adjudicating the impugned proceedings. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the disputed questions of fact and decide the case. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing revision and when the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of grievance. By virtue of Clause 24 of the Control Order, 2018, the Government has power to entertain revision, which reads as follows:- “Any person aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority may file Revision before the Government.” 9. However, this Court granted interim order on 15.07.2024, directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer relating to the shop No.1220015 of Pillalapally Village, Brahmasamudramu Mandal, Anantapuramu District, by suspending the proceedings R.C.No.K6/188/2020 dated 13.03.2024 passed by the District Collector/2nd respondent. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the interim orders granted by this Court and as the petitioner has intention to approach the revisional authority, instead of going into merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority in accordance with law. Till the outcome of the revision, the interim order shall continue. If the revision is not filed 6 within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the interim order shall stand vacated. 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: 17.03.2026. JLV 7 310 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14728/2024 Date: 17.03.2026 JLV