1 APHC010601252024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 31336/2024 Between: 1. CHEKKA VIJAYA KUMARI, W/O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OMPOLU, MUNGAPAKA MANDAL, VISKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, AP STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, D.NO.10-152/1, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, SRI SAI TOWERS, BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY, ASHOK NAGAR, BANDAR ROAD, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA - 520007. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (CIVIL SUPPLIES), ANAKAPALLI DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. MYCHERLA SIVA KRISHNA, S/O RAMANA, HINDU, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O VOMPOLU VILLAGE, MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S 2 ORDER DT.08.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2025. ...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 pass an order or orders or a direction in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing Proceedings vide R.C. No. 1113/2024.SA-E, dated 06.12.2024, to the extent of notifying the Fair Price Shop No. 334012, Ompolu Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District, as vacant for the appointment of permanent dealers and consequent action of the Respondent officials in conducting the Written Examination and Interview and proceeding further to appointment a third party as Permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Fair Price Shop No. 334012, Ompolu Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District pending consideration of my case for restoration as Fair Shop Dealer for Fair Price Shop No. 334012, Ompolu Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to principles of natural justice, besides being violative of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same to the extent of the Fair Price Shop No. 334012, Ompolu Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District and consider the representation of the petitioner in appointing him as a Permanent Fair Shop dealer and/or 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 pleased direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for restoring the F.P Shop bearing No. 334012, Ompolu Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District to the Petitioner pursuant to the proceedings of the 3rd and 4th Respondents vide Rc.No. 2164/2021/E dated 04.12.2021 and R.C 685/2024/JA dated 26.12.2024 and pass IA NO: 2 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 be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide R.C. No. 1113/2024.SA-E, dated 06.12.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent to the extent of the shop number 334012 Permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for F.P Shop bearing No. 334012, Ompolu Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District and pass 3 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 permit the petitioner to implead the proposed Respondent i.e., Mycherla Siva Krishna, S/o Ramana, Resident of Vompolu Village, Munagapaka Mandal as 6th Respondent in the W.P No. 31336 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned Notification issued by Respondent No.3 vide R.C.No.1113/2024.SA-E, dated 06.12.2024, to the extent of notifying the Fair Price Shop No.334012, Ompolu Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District as vacant for appointment of permanent dealers. 2. Heard Sri T.S.B.V.Rama Reddy, learned counsel representing C.K.R Associates for the petitioner and Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Sri T.S.B.V.Rama Reddy, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit submitted that originally the petitioner has been appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer. Later, due to some false complaint, 6-A proceedings under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been initiated against him and simultaneously disciplinary action for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization was also initiated. Thereafter, 6-A proceedings was concluded and held against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam vide Crl.A.No.24 of 2005 and the same was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 29.12.2006. However, on disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled in the year 2004. After allowing the petitioner’s appeal by the Sessions Court in the year 2006, petitioner fell sick and could not approach the authorities for assignment of the dealer ship in her favour. However, after 5 recovery from her ill health, she approached the authorities and made representation on 29.11.2021 for restoration of the dealership in her favour. On such representation, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent a communication to the Tahsildar to consider the case of the petitioner. However, pending consideration of the said representation, now the authorities have notified the subject fair price shop for appointment of dealer on permanent basis. If the permanent dealer is appointed by virtue of this notification, the petitioner’s efforts in making representation for getting back her fair price shop dealership would be in vain. As such, notification to the extent of the petitioner fair price shop No.334012 is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled where back in the year 2004 and the said cancellation orders has attained finality. The petitioner did not question the same. Even otherwise, if the appeal under Essential Commodities Act filed by the petitioner is allowed, the petitioner ought to have questioned the cancellation of his authorization. But, no steps has been taken by the petitioner till date. After lapse of more than 15 years, a representation has been made requesting to continue her as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for the subject fair price shops which cannot be considered at all. Except saying that the petitioner was suffering from ill health no material has been placed as to what ill health she got and moreover, she did not explain the delay of 15 years in making such representation. He further submits that in fact, the Writ Petition has become 6 infructuous on the ground that on the notification the unofficial respondent was already appointed as fair price shop dealer. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled in the year 2004 and the petitioner has made representation in the year 2021. The sole reason explained by the petitioner why she could not approach the authorities is that she is unwell. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader except saying that, no material is placed to substantiate the abnormal delay of more than 15 years. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. & Ors1 has categorically held, when the High Courts while giving a direction to the appropriate authority to decide the representation, they have to consider whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is bound by latches and/or not, so that in future the person who has approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even otherwise, the notification has been attained finality as the unofficial respondent has been appointed as dealer of the subject fair price shop and on the said ground itself, the writ petition has to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed. 1 (2022) 1 SCC 536 7 7. 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: 22.01.2026 TM/SCS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 31336/2024 Date: 22.01.2026 TM/SCS