1 APHC010326542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16568/2024 Between: K Raminaidu ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: The case of the petitioner is that, the Revenue Divisional Officer(4th respondent) has appointed him as Fair Price Shop Dealer for FP Shop No.0123030 situated in Sairigam village, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam district vide proceedings dated 01.05.2018 and eversince he was distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any adverse remarks. It was further case of the petitioner that, due to change of Government in A.P. in the month of June, 2019, the official respondents conducted inspection in his shop on 20.08.2019 and found some variations in the stocks. Accordingly, the 3rd 2 respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.08.2019 on the alleged ground of certain irregularities and seized the stocks and sought explanation as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated to the Government. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted explanation but without considering the same, the 3rd respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 31-08-2019 without issuing show cause notice for suspension and without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the writ petition vide W.P.No.13150 of 2019 which was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on 23.09.2019 by setting aside the proceedings dated 31.08.2019. 2. It was the further case that, pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2019, the 3rd respondent issued notice and asked the petitioner to appear for personal hearing for which the counsel for the petitioner has appeared on his behalf and submitted written explanation dated 10.10.2019 denying all the charges levelled against him. But the 3rd respondent, without considering the said explanation, without conducting any enquiry and without recording reasons, has issued proceedings dated 07.12.2019 and thereby cancelled the petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop for FP Shop No.0123030 contrary to the provisions of A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System Control order, 2018 (for short, ‘Control Order, 2018’). Aggrieved by the said cancellation orders, the petitioner filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.3371 of 2020 and this Court has allowed the said writ petition vide its order dated 19.02.2020 and has set aside the proceedings dated 07.12.2019 and the 3 matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent to issue fresh show cause notice, after receiving explanation from the petitioner and after conducting detailed enquiry directed him to pass appropriate orders and also directed the respondents therein to permit the petitioner therein to run the said fair price shop until the said exercise is completed. 3. It was the further case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the order dated 19.02.2020 in W.P.No.3371/2020, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 29.03.2020 and asked the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted the explanation dated 10.04.2020 denying all the allegations made against him. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any final order till today and also he was not allowed to run the subject fair price shop. 4. While things stood thus, contrary to the orders passed in W.P.No.3371/2020 dated 19.02.2020, the then 5th respondent (Sub-Collector) issued proceedings dated 17.08.2021 stating that a 6-A case is booked against the subject shop on 26.07.2021 and upon the request of Mandala Mahila Samakya Sangham, Jalumuru, the subject shop was allotted to one Smt Ponnana Sreedevi, W/o Musali Naidu as in-charge dealer from the month of September, 2021 onwards. Thereafter, the said in-charge dealer submitted her resignation which was accepted by the official respondents. Thereupon, 4th respondent(RDO) has appointed the 7th respondent as temporary dealer for the subject fair price shop vide proceedings dated 06.07.2024, which is 4 contrary to the order passed by this court in W.P.No.3371/2020 dated 19.02.2020. Questioning the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 19.02.2020 in W.P.No.3371/2020, the 3rd respondent had issued show cause notice and invited explanation from the petitioner but did not concluded the enquiry. He further submitted that, when this Court has specifically directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the subject fair price shop until the procedure as contemplated under law is completed, the 4th respondent has appointed the 7th respondent as temporary dealer under proceedings dated 06.07.2024 in utter violation and ignorance of the said orders of this Court. If the said proceedings are allowed to subsist, the rights of the petitioner would be affected, as such prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2024. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3371 of 2020, the respondent has issued show cause notice inviting explanation and after completion of due procedure, the then Joint Collector issued directions to permit the petitioner to run the subject shop but the 5 petitioner did not come forward to take his dealership and as no other alternative, the subject fair price shop was handed over to one Ponnana Sreedevi, SHG and later as she submitted resignation, the said shop was allotted to the 7th respondent under proceedings dated 06.07.2024 purely on temporary basis. He further submitted that, 7th respondent has also submitted resignation, as such one Kornu Sridevi, W/o Appalaswamy, Sai Durga SHG was appointed as temporary dealer to the subject fair price shop vide proceedings dated 30.01.2025 to distribute the essential commodities. He further submitted that, the petitioner has kept quite since 2020 and has never sent any representation, as such the authorities are under the impression that the petitioner has no interest to run the FP shop and accordingly allotted other individuals to run the shop and thus, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the same. He further submitted that before the appointment of 7th respondent, one Ponnana Sreedevi was appointed as a temporary dealer but the petitioner has questioned only the appointment of the 7th respondent. He further submitted that without questioning the said appointment, the petitioner cannot question the subsequent appointment of the 7th respondent, as such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer for FP Shop No.0123030 situated in Sairigam village, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam district. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that, 6 though this Court has set aside the suspension proceedings and cancellation proceedings of the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer, the respondent authorities have not permitted him to run the fair price shop and appointed 7th respondent as temporary dealer for the subject shop without conducting any enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.3371/2020. Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as the petitioner did not come forward to take his dealership, the said dealership was allotted to other individuals for running the fair price shop that too on temporary basis. It was further submitted that the 7th respondent whose appointment was questioned in this writ petition, has also submitted resignation and the subject shop was allotted to one K.Sridevi on temporary basis. 10. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that when this Court has specifically directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to run the fair price shop until the procedure contemplated under law is completed, under its order dated 19.02.2020 in W.P.No.3371/2020, the respondents have not allowed the petitioner to run the same. When the petitioner is of the opinion that, the orders of this Court have been violated, no reasons are coming forward as to why the present writ petition is filed instead of filing a contempt case. Further, the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that as the petitioner did not turn up to take his dealership, the authorities are under the impression that he has no interest to run the FP shop and accordingly allotted other individuals to run the shop. This Court is of the firm opinion that the said contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is untenable because 7 if the petitioner is not interested in running the fair price shop and take the dealership, the petitioner would not have filed writ petitions one after the other seeking to restore his authorization as fair price shop dealer. However, the said Kornu Sridevi, W/o Appalaswamy, Sai Durga SHG who was appointed as temporary dealer to the subject shop vide proceedings dated 30.01.2025, is not before this Court and if any order is passed, it may affect her rights. As such, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (a) The petitioner shall file approach the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer with a representation asking to handover the dealership to him. (b) On such representation, the respondent authority concerned shall pass orders by duly taking into consideration the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.3371/2020 dated 19.02.2020 and after hearing the petitioner and the present temporary dealer within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the representation. (c) Any orders passed on the petitioner’s representation would be subject to outcome of the pending main enquiry as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.3371/2020 dated 19.02.2020. Further, any observations made in this writ petition shall not come in the way while conducting main enquiry. 8 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS