APHC010582762023 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: 30032/2023 Between: 1. PAMULA VENKATA SRI HARI,, S/O LATE P.VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O 14 NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT, 521185. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFICER, NANDIGAMA DIVISION, NANDIGAMA 4. THE DISTRICT TAHSILDAR, NANDIGAMA MANDAL, NANDIGAMA, NTR 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 writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 4th Respondent in passing an endorsement rejecting the representation made for appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in pursuant to GO.Ms.No 32, dated 03 2018 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS though the said GO does not deal with compassionate appointments and 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: 30032/2023 PAMULA VENKATA SRI HARI,, S/O LATE P.VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O 14-70, YADAV BAZAR, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT, 521185. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFICER, NANDIGAMA DIVISION, THE DISTRICT TAHSILDAR, NANDIGAMA MANDAL, NANDIGAMA, ...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 declare the action of 4th Respondent in passing an endorsement rejecting the representation made for appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in pursuant to GO.Ms.No 32, dated 03 2018 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Depar though the said GO does not deal with compassionate appointments and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PAMULA VENKATA SRI HARI,, S/O LATE P.VENKATA NARASIMHA 70, YADAV BAZAR, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFICER, NANDIGAMA DIVISION, THE DISTRICT TAHSILDAR, NANDIGAMA MANDAL, NANDIGAMA, ...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 declare the action of 4th Respondent in passing an endorsement rejecting the representation made for appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in pursuant to GO.Ms.No 32, dated 03-12- I) Department even though the said GO does not deal with compassionate appointments and 2 thereby the 3rd Respondent in issuing notification for inviting fresh applications for dealership of fair price shop as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop Number 0604008 at Nandigama by suspending the endorsement given by the 4th Respondent. Prayer is amended as per the Court's Order dt.19.11.2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2024. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay on all further proceedings for Fair Pride Shop Number 0604008 at Nandigama including the notification issued by the 3rd Respondent pending disposal of this writ petition in the interest of justice. 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 the petitioner to amend the prayer portion in the affidavit in petition in WP No. 30032 of 2023 by amending words "Appointment of petitioner as fair price shop dealer in pursuant to GO.MS No. 32 dated 03-12-2018 Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department even though the said GO does Not deal with compassionate Appointments in the place of " appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer under compassionate appointments" in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAZID KALLUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 issued endorsement rejecting the representation made by the petitioner seeking appointment as a Fair Price shop dealer on compassionate appointment by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 03.12.2018 even though the said G.O. does not deal with compassionate appointments and consequently respondent No.3 issued Notification inviting fresh applications for dealership of Fair Price shop. 2. Heard Sri Sazid Kallur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner’s father was appointed as Fair Price shop dealer for the shop No.0604008 in the year 2019 and he passed away on 28.08.2022. After the demise of his father, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2-District Collector through Spandana dated 12.06.2023 requesting to appoint him as Fair Price shop dealer on compassionate grounds. He further contended that the Tahsildar, without having any jurisdiction or authority, issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner’s elder brother was working as Village Revenue Officer and denied the grant of Fair Price shop dealership by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018. He further contended that the said action is wholly without jurisdiction, 4 arbitrary and nonest in the eye of law. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that the petitioner, instead of submitting representation to the Revenue Divisional officer, submitted the same to the Tahsildar. However, he fairly conceded that the Tahsildar is not the competent authority to pass orders on the petitioner’s representation and ought to have forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer instead of issuing the endorsement. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the petitioner had submitted the representation to the District Collector through spandana and not to the Tahsildar. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by both the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that as per Control Order 2018, the Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to pass orders on the petitioner’s representation. Perusal of the record shows that the representation was submitted to the District Collector through Spandana and on the said representation, the Tahsildar has issued the endorsement rejecting petitioner’s claim. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies is that the petitioner, instead of submitting representation to the Revenue Divisional officer, submitted the same to the Tahsildar. If such is the case, the Tahsidlar should have forwarded the 5 representation of the petitioner to the Revenue Divisional officer for enquiry, however, he failed to do so. Further perusal of the endorsement shows that the Tahsildar has rejected the petitioner’s representation relying on G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018. The said G.O is not related to the compassionate appointment. The Tahsildar, without jurisdiction and without application of mind, had issued the impugned endorsement, which is unsustainable. Since the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass orders on the petitioner’s representation, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is inclined to remand the matter to the Revenue Divisional officer for fresh consideration. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of remanding the matter to respondent No.3 to adjudicate the petitioner’s representation afresh and pass a reasoned order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. Such exercise shall be completed 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 6 243 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.30032 of 2023 05.02.2026 7 MP