APHC010380432020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25366/2020 Between: 1. MADDI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HINDU, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO. 0816030, CHERVUKOMMUPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ADDANKI MANDAL, ADDANKI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, ADDANKI TOWN, ADDANKI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 6. MALADI AJAY RANI W/O VENKATA SUBBA RAO, FEMALE, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O 2 CHERUVUKOMMUPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.29.01.2026 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2022. ...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 toto issue a Writ, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as an authorized fair price shop dealer of F.P. Shop No. 0816030 of Chervukommupalem village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District and making In-charge arrangements to another person as illegal and arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Commodities Control Order, 2018, and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as an authorized permanent fair price shop dealer of F.P. Shop No. 0816030 of Chervukommupalem village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District in the interest of justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Permanent F.P. Shop No. 0816030 of Chervukommupalem village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam :: 8 :: District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt: 27-07-2021 in WP.No.25366/2020 and dismiss the writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 permit the petitioner to be impleaded as Party / proposed respondent No. 6 in W.P.No. 25366 of 2020 and also in the 3 pending Interlocutory Applications therein, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 vacate the interim orders dated 27.07.2021 passed in IA No. 01 of 2020 in W.P.No. 25366 of 2020, in the interest of justice and 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 grant leave for filing of the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent in W.P No.25366 of 2020 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 pleased to grant leave to file the counter to the implead petition filed by the proposed 6th respondent in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in Writ Petition No. 25366 of 2020 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGENDRA BABU.U Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: To declare the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as an authorized fair price shop dealer for shop No.0816030 of Chervukommupalem Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District and making in-charge arrangements to another person as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri U.Narendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for unofficial respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, in the year 2009, the petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for the subject shop. He further submitted that, the 4th and 5th respondents along with political busy bodies and rowdy elements, came to his shop on 18.01.2020 and threatened him that they will foist a false case against him and secured resignation from the petitioner forcefully. He further submitted that it is the duty cast upon the RDO to issue notice to find out the truth about the said resignation. It was further submitted that without any show cause notice, the Tahsildar has issued in-charge proceedings in favour of the favourate person of political busy bodies. The said action of the respondent authority is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contentions, 5 learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Chinnareddigari Sambasiva Reddy Vs The State of A.P & others1 and prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the in-charge proceedings submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuing such proceedings. He further submitted that every individual after submitting resignation letter, takes U-turn and says that the signature was obtained forcefully and the present case is one such classic example of the same. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that, the petitioner has cooked up the said story that the resignation letter was secured forcefully only after the in-charge proceedings of 6th respondent. He further submitted that having given a resignation letter, the petitioner cannot question the in-charge proceedings and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for the shop No.0816030. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the 4th and 5th respondents along with political busy 1 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1043 6 bodies and rowdy elements have obtained resignation letter from the petitioner forcefully and the authority concerned without any notice, has made in-charge arrangements for distribution of essential commodities. Whereas the respondents have contended that having submitted a resignation letter, the petitioner cannot take a U-turn and question the impugned proceedings. This Court is unable to accept the said contention because if the petitioner is not interested in continuing as a fair price shop dealer he would not have approached this Court by filing writ petitions. 8. The relevant portion in the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted hereunder: <Ordinarily, no fair price shop dealer would like to quit his assignment. If such extra ordinary desire is expressed by any dealer, it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to put the dealer on notice before accepting the resignation as, foul play by vested interests cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I cannot appreciate the action of respondent No.3 in purporting to ratify the hasty and unauthorised action of respondent No.4 without even trying to get the confirmation from the petitioner as to whether he has sent his resignation out of his free will or the same is secured by any vested interests by force. The failure of respondent No.3 to make an enquiry in this regard by issuing notice to the petitioner vitiates the entire action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in easing out the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership. As respondent No.3 has not properly exercised his jurisdiction in acting on the purported resignation of the petitioner, his action culminating in acceptance/ratification of resignation of the petitioner is declared as illegal and the impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. As the petitioner is inclined to continue as the fair price shop dealer, he shall be permitted to continue as such under the authorization held by him.= 9. This court is inclined to concur with the findings made in the said judgment that no fair price shop dealer would like to quit his assignment. 7 Further, when a resignation letter was submitted, the 3rd respondent ought to have conducted some enquiry to find out whether the petitioner has submitted such resignation letter out of his free will or under coercion. Admittedly, as stated supra, the RDO has not conducted any discreet enquiry while accepting the petitioner’s resignation to find out whether the same was submitted out of his will or not. Therefore, the said judgment is applicable to the facts of this case and the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside and in view of the same, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (a) The RDO-3rd respondent is directed to conduct enquiry on the petitioner’s resignation as to whether he has given the resignation out of his free will or under any coercion. (b) If the respondent authority concerned comes to a conclusion that the petitioners’ resignation was secured under coercion, the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as a dealer for the subject fair price shop. (c) If the respondent authority concerned come to a conclusion that the petitioner has resigned voluntarily, the 6th respondent shall continue as dealer to the subject fair price shop. (d) Till the completion of such enquiry, the petitioner shall continue as a fair price shop dealer for the subject fair price shop. The amount deposited by the 6th respondent, if any, shall be returned to her”. 8 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02nd March, 2026 JLV 9 263 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25366/2020 Date: 02nd March, 2026 JLV