APHC010430332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22034/2025 Between: 1. BORA ASIRI NAIDU, S/O LATE DHALIGURUVU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. H.NO.2-98, LAKSHMIPURAM, TAMAVADA, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 532403. 2. VAKADA GANESH, , S/O ASIRI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. H.NO.2-98, LAKSHMIPURAM, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 532403. 3. BASA RAMANA,, S/O LATE SOMULU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. H.NO 3-61, BC VEEDHI, BC COLONY, LAKSHMIPURAM, TAMAVADA, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 532403. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, 2 SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, , LAVERU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SMT DALLI RAMANAMMA, W/O SURAPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, LAKSHMIPURAM, LAVERU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 4threspondent in issuing the orders in Rc.No.301/2024 CS, dated 15.04.2025 for restoration of authorization of the 6th Respondent without considering the complaint given by the petitioners and other cardholders in proper perspective and further action of the respondents 3 to 5 in not considering the representations given by the petitioners and other cardholders dated 26.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 and not passing the final order pursuant to the enquiry conducted against the 6th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, contrary to the APSTPDS Control Order 2018 and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the order of 4th respondent dated 15.04.2025 and further direct the respondents 1 to 5 to cancel the authorization of the 6th respondent in respect of F.P.Shop No. 0106034, at Lakshmipuram Village, Laveru Mandal, 3 permanently, by passing a final order pursuant to the enquiry conducted against the 6th respondent 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T VENU GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: Impugning the proceedings vide Rc.No.301/2024CS, dated 15.04.2025, issued by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, restoring the authorization of the 6th respondent’s dealership, without considering the complaint given by the petitioners/card holders, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri T. Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineet Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri Gnaneswara Rao, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that against the atrocities being made by the Fair Price Shop dealer (6th respondent herein), the entire villagers/cardholders made a representation to the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, and a copy was served to the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector. Basing on the said complaint, the 6th respondent’s dealership was suspended. Thereafter, pending the enquiry, restored the authorization of the 6th respondent’s dealership. He further submitted that even after restoration of the suspension order, the 6th respondent did not change his attitude and continued to indulge in irregularities, causing inconvenience to the card holders. If the said order is allowed to subsist, it affects the rights of the petitioners. As such, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned counsel for the 6th respondent, in one voice, contended that the writ petition has become infructuous on the ground that the 6th respondent assailed the cancellation order before this Court in W.P.No.33732 of 2025 and this Court allowed the writ petition under its order dated 22.12.2025 by setting aside the cancellation order and remanded the matter to the 3rd 5 respondent for conducting a detailed enquiry, examining the card holders, who have raised complaint. The petitioner grievance was very much taken due note by this Court in the said writ petition. He further submitted that having knowledge about the passing of such order, the petitioners suppressed the said fact and filed the present writ petition. As such, the writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact of allowing the writ petition and remanding the matter to the concerned authority was not within the knowledge of the card holders, as the said writ petition allowed in the month of December, 2025, wherein the present writ petition was filed in the month of August, 2025. In the said circumstances, suppression of facts does not arise as alleged by the respondents and costs may not imposed on the card holders/petitioners herein. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 7. It is not in dispute that a complaint/grievance has been raised by the cardholder/petitioners herein against the 6th respondent’s dealership. As could be culled out from the facts 6 and submissions, the respondent authorities have acted upon the petitioners’ representation and thereby cancelled the authorization. The same has been questioned by the 6th respondent in W.P.No.33732 of 2025 and this Court, by order dated 20.11.2025, set aside the orders impugned therein (cancellation of the authorization of the 6th respondent’s dealership), and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry and examine the cardholders/villagers, who have raised the complaint. 8. In view of the above foregoing, the Writ Petition is disposed of, as their interest has already been protected in the writ petition mentioned supra. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 30.01.2026 ANS 7 224 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22034/2025 Date: 30.01.2026 ANS