APHC010405332024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20832/2024 Between: 1. KAMETI SANTHAKUMARI, W/O MALLESWARA RAO, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC MEMBER SRI VENKATESWARA SELF HELP GROUP, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.0127124, NARASINGAPALLI VILLAGE, TEKKALI MANDALAM, SHKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPT., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, TEKKALI, TEKKALI REVENUE DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TEKKALI MANDAL, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. SMT DARAPU SRILATHA, W/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCU MEMBER SRI BHADRACHALAM SWAYAM SAHAYAKA SANGAM, NARASINGAPALLI VILLAGE, TEKKALI MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 ...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 declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned order vide Rc.No.408/2024/CS-F dt. 19.07.2024, permitting the 5th respondent to lift and distribute the Essential Commodities to the card holders of Fair Price shop No.0127124, situated at Narasingapalli village, in Tekkali Mandal, without any notice to the petitioner, while she is lifting and distributing the essential commodities to the card holders pursuant to the orders of the 2nd respondent dt.13.08.2019 bearing Rc.No.248/2019/S4 as illegal, arbitrary, unilateral and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer, shop No. 0127124, situated at Narasingapalli village, in Tekkali Mandal 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer, shop No. 0127124, situated at Narasingapalli village, in Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District, by suspending the impugned order vide Rc.No.408/2024/CS-F dt. 19.07.2024, passed by the Sub- Collector, the 3rd respondent herein, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 19.07.2024 permitting the 5th respondent to lift and distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders of Fair Price Shop No.0127124 situated at Narasingapalli Village, Tekkali Mandal, without any notice to the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil supplies. Despite service of notice, the 5th respondent did not choose to put up her appearance before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, on 13.08.2019, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for the shop No.0127124 situated in Narasingapalli Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District, till the permanent vacancy is filled up through notification. Since then, the petitioner is distributing the commodities to the cardholders regularly without any complaints. While so, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2024 permitting the 5th respondent to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders as the petitioner has given resignation. In fact, the petitioner never gave any resignation at any time. He further submitted that if the respondent have received the said resignation, it is the duty cast upon the respondent authority to issue 4 notice to find out the truth about the said resignation. It was further submitted that without issuing any show cause notice, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings accepting the resignation of the petitioner and entrusting the distribution work to the 5th respondent vide proceedings dated 19.07.2024. The said action of the respondent authority is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contentions, 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 impugned orders in elaboration to the counter affidavit submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuing such impugned orders. He further submitted that every individual after submitting resignation letter, takes U-turn and says that they never gave resignation, 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. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for the shop No.0127124 till the permanent 1 1 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1043 5 vacancy is filled up through notification. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent due to political vengeance, has issued the impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2024 stating that the petitioner submitted her resignation and appointed the 5th respondent in place of the petitioner. 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 she would not have approached this Court by filing writ petitions. 7. 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 extraordinary 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.” 6 8. 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. Further, when a resignation letter was submitted, the respondent authority concerned 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 3rd respondent has not conducted any discreet enquiry while accepting the petitioner’s resignation to find out whether the same was submitted out of her 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 impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2024 permitting the 5th respondent to distribute essential commodities in place of the petitioner, is hereby set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to conduct enquiry on the petitioner’s resignation as to whether she has given the resignation or not and the same is out of her 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. 7 (c) If the respondent authority concerned come to a conclusion that the petitioner has submitted resignation voluntarily, the 5th respondent shall continue as dealer to the subject fair price shop. (d) Till completion of such enquiry, the petitioner shall continue as a temporary dealer for the subject fair price shop. The deposit made by the 5th respondent, if any, shall be returned to the 5th respondent. 9. 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: 31st January, 2026 RKS