APHC010481272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24459/2025 Between: 1. CHILAKA KRISHNA, S/O SAMUEL, AGED 39 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP PERMANENT DEALER, FP SHOP NO.0715067, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.6-16, DULLIPALLA VILLAGE, SATHENAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522403. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AT NARSARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AT SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, OF SATHENAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. ...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 2 may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly, the 3rd respondent/RDO not taking any action on representation dated 20-08-2020 for which the Dhulipalla Village Revenue Officer, Police Officials came to my shop and threatened for my resignation and forcefully obtained my signatures on a blank white paper and thereby the 3rd respondent/RDO stopped the essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Shop No.0715067 without conducting independent enquiry and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and also oppose to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further it is also against the principles laid down in China Reddigari Sambasiva Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and consequently direct the 3rd respondent/RDO to take action on my representation dated 20-8-2020 and further direct to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Shop vide its Authorization No. FP Shop No.0715067 of Dhulipalla Village, Sathenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh and to 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 to direct the 3rd respondent/RDO to take action on my representation dated 20-8-2020 and renewal my authorization license 14/SAO/2019 and further direct to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Shop 0715067 of Dhulipalla Village, Sathenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant leave to the Respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition No.24459 of 2025 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJA SEKHAR SYKAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not taking action on the representation dated 20.08.2020 submitted to take action against the Village Revenue Officer and Police Officials who threatened the petitioner to submit his resignation and obtaining his signatures forcibly on blank papers and stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner, without conducting enquiry. 2. Heard Sri Sykam Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for the shop No.0715067 situated in Dhulipalla Village, Sathenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, in the year 2014 and has been distributing essential commodities to the utmost satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. He further submitted that, 4 on the instructions of the 4th respondent, the Village Revenue Officer along with Police constables came to his shop on 18.08.2020 and threatened him that they will foist a false case against him and secured resignation from the petitioner forcefully. He further submitted that, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent authorities to take necessary action. He further submitted that having received the said representation, it is the duty cast upon the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue notice to find out the truth about the said resignation. It was further submitted that the respondents have stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. 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 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 the signature was obtained forcefully and the present case is one such classic example of the same. As such, the writ 1 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1043 5 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 permanent fair price shop dealer for the shop No.0715067. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the Village Revenue Officer along with police officials have obtained resignation letter from the him forcefully and though the same was informed to the respondent authority through a representation, the authority concerned without considering the same, stopped supplying essential commodities to the subject shop. Whereas the respondents have contended that having submitted a resignation letter, the petitioner cannot take a U-turn and find fault with the authorities. 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 petition. 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 6 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.” 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 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, particularly when the petitioner has made a representation. Therefore, the said judgment is applicable to the facts of this case. Admittedly, the petitioner’s authorization was neither suspended nor cancelled and in the said circumstances, the authorities cannot stop supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner. In view of the reasons stated supra, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: 7 “i. The respondent authority concerned 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 and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner, by considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 20.08.2020. ii. The authorities are further directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop.” 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: 17th February, 2026 RKS