APHC010482392022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29487/2022 Between: 1. PRATHIPATI NIRMALA, W/O LATE PURUSHOTAM, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. JANGAMGUDEM VILLAGE, NUZVID MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES BUILDING, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NUZVID, ELURU DISTRICT. 4. THE THASILDAR, NUZVID MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus questioning the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings R.C.A.839/2022 dated 18.08.2022 without issuing any show cause notice or without asking any explanation from the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 consequentially set aside the rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent thereby direct the respondents to allot the fair price shop to the petitioner and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29487/2022 PRATHIPATI NIRMALA, W/O LATE PURUSHOTAM, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. JANGAMGUDEM VILLAGE, NUZVID MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NUZVID, ELURU DISTRICT. THE THASILDAR, NUZVID MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of uestioning the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings R.C.A.839/2022 dated 18.08.2022 without issuing any show cause notice or without asking any explanation from the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent thereby direct the respondents to allot the fair price shop to the petitioner and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PRATHIPATI NIRMALA, W/O LATE PURUSHOTAM, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. JANGAMGUDEM VILLAGE, NUZVID ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NUZVID, ELURU DISTRICT. THE THASILDAR, NUZVID MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of uestioning the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings R.C.A.839/2022 dated 18.08.2022 without issuing any show cause notice or without asking any explanation from the petitioner is illegal and of Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent thereby direct the respondents to allot the fair price shop to the petitioner and 2 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 to suspend the proceedings R.C.A.839/2022 dated 18.08.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent by rejecting petitioner representation dated 23.07.2022 for allotment of fair price dealership following the G.0 Ms No. 4 dated 28.02.2014 pending disposal of Writ Petition, 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 to permit receive counter copies on record by granting leave to the Respondent in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing any show cause notice or without seeking any explanation from her, respondent No.3 issued endorsement vide R.C.A.No.839 of 2022 dated 18.08.2022 refusing to appoint the petitioner as the Fair Price shop dealer on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased husband. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Fair Price shop dealer vide authorization No.28/0623023/NZD/NZD/2019 dated 27.03.2019 and he suddenly expired on 23.06.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application requesting to appoint her as Fair Price shop dealer on compassionate grounds in his place by taking into consideration the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.4 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 22.02.2014. The said application was refused vide impugned endorsement. 3. Heard Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the authorities rejected the petitioner’s application for appointment as Fair Price Shop dealer on compassionate 4 grounds without proper application of mind stating that certain variations in stock had been noticed as on the date her husband’s death and that the shop had been handed over to the Dwakra group. He further contended that the respondent authorities, without issuing any show cause notice or seeking any explanation regarding the alleged stock variation, straight away rejected the petitioner’s application stating that she was not entitled for allotment of Fair Price shop under the Control Order 2018. He further contended that the petitioner has no other source of income to sustain her livelihood or to provide financial support to her children. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, contended that the petitioner, being the wife of the deceased Fair Price shop dealer, submitted a representation on 23.07.2022 before respondent No.3, who is the Appointing Authority of FP shop dealers, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. He further contended that respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Nuzvid reported on 26.07.2022 that there was a shortfall of 37 quintals of PDS rice as on the date of the death of the Fair Price shop dealer i.e petitioner’s husband and the same fact came to light while handing over the balance Essential Commodities to the newly appointed Dwakra Group on temporary basis. He further contended that as per clause 6 (vi) of Control Order, the previous record of the dealer must be clean and there shall be no proceedings pending under the orders issued under the Essential 5 Commodities Act. In view of the pending enquiry, the petitioner’s request cannot be considered at present. He further submits that the petitioner’s representation will be considered soon after the finalization of the issue relating to the alleged shortfall of PDS rice by the higher authorities. Hence, there is no illegality in rejecting her representation for appointment under compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.No.4, dated 28.02.2014 and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband died while holding authorization as a Fair Price shop dealer and she made an application for appointing her as Fair Price shop dealer on compassionate grounds. 8. The petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that there is a shortfall of 37 quintals of PDS rice as on the date of death of deceased Fair Price shop dealer. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the application of a legal heir can be rejected solely on the ground of alleged stock variation attributed to the deceased Fair Price shop dealer. It is well settled that appointment of a Fair Price Shop dealer is governed by statutory provisions and policy guidelines and is not a matter of hereditary succession as of right. However, where the Government policy permits consideration of legal heirs, such consideration must be in accordance with law and cannot be denied arbitrarily. 6 9. A reading of Rule 3(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.4 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 28.02.2014 shows that the legal heirs of the deceased dealers may be given preference among the equal applicants who applied for the same dealership in response to the general notification. Rule 6(vi) of the said G.O. reads that previous record of the dealer shall be clean and there shall be no cases under the orders issued under the Essential commodities Act pending against him/her. 10. As could be seen from the said G.O., no case should be pending against the original dealer under the Essential commodities Act. In the present case, no particulars have been placed on record indicating whether any such disciplinary orders were passed against the deceased dealer. The only point is that enquiry is pending against him. The issues that have to be dealt by the authorities while considering the petitioner’s application are that, whether mere pendency of any enquiry can be a ground to reject the petitioner’s application and whether the authorities can further proceed with the enquiry, particularly, when the original dealer has died. Since the authorities have not dealt properly with the said issues, this matter has to be remanded to respondent No.3 for fresh enquiry. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of remanding the matter to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration by taking into account the aforesaid aspects. The concerned respondent authorities are directed to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner’s representation dated 23.07.2022 after 7 affording an opportunity of hearing, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 05.02.2026 MP 8 72 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.29487 of 2022 05.02.2026 MP