APHC010536422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28012/2024 Between: 1. GEDELA ESWARAMMA, W/O RAMANA RAO AGED 50 YEARS SATRAM VILLAGE, SARAVAKOTA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCIVIL SUPPLIES, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUB- COLLECTOR TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SARAVAKOTA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the 2 proceedings dated 21.10.2024 in Rc.No.754/2024/F passed by the 3rd Respondent whereby cancelling the authorization of the Petitioners Fair Price Shop Dealership situated at Satram village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District taking cue from the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS- I) Department dated 03.12.2018 though the same is not applicable to the Petitioners case as also without any justifiable reason as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealership situated at Satram village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District by suspending the proceedings dated 21.10.2024 in Rc.No.754/2024/F passed by the 3rd Respondent 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 Dealership situated at Satram village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District by suspending the proceedings dated 21.10.2024 in Rc.No.754/2024/F passed by the 3RD Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization of Fair Price Shop Dealership situated at Satram Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District, is the grievance of the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that a show cause notice dated 28.09.2024 has been issued to the petitioner asking him to submit an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as per Clause 12 of the Control Order, 2018, as the petitioner is holding the post of Sarpanch of the Village. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 05.10.2024 denying the allegations. However, without considering the same, the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 has been passed cancelling the authorization of the petitioner to the fair price shop. He further submitted that if the said action is allowed to continue, it would affect the rights of the petitioner, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, 4 Food & Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 03.12.2018, the petitioner is not eligible to hold any office and she has to give an undertaking to the authorities concerned that she shall relinquish the fair price shop dealership when she was elected as Sarpanch. He further submitted that the petitioner, willfully with a malicious intention mislead and cheated the Revenue Authorities, as such, the order impugned is sustainable. The writ petition is meritless, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has applied for renewing the dealership and brought to their notice that she is holding the post of Sarpanch and her dealership has been renewed. Having renewed the license, they cannot cancel the authorization, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 7. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 03.12.2018, All individuals holding any Public Office like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President of Mandal Praja Parshad, Chairman of Zilla Praza Parishad, Presidents of Co-operative Societies, Councillors or Chairman of Municipality / Members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) etc., or holding any office of profit irrespective of the reservation shall not be eligible;. As per the said 5 rules, the petitioner cannot hold any office. Admittedly, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the year 2021. In view of the same, passing impugned orders cancelling the dealership of the petitioner is sustainable and no grounds have been raised or urged warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 21st January, 2026 RKS