APHC010703752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 791/2026 Between: 1. CH SANTOSH REDDY, S/O CH. CHODA REDDY, AGED 32 YEARS, PEDDAGONEHAL VILLAGE, HOLAGUNDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT 518301 3. THE TAHSHILDAR, HOLAGUNDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 518346 4. K DEVENDER REDDY, S/O LINGA REDDY, ABOUT 62 YEARS, INCHARGE .DEALER, PEDDAGONEHAL VILLAGE, HOLAGUNDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 518346 ...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 pas orders particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents in restoring the 2 petitioner as FPS dealer for Shop No., Shop No.1324019, Peddagonehal village as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, violative of right to life and Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the charge of FP Shop and continue to issue commodities for the shop No. 1324019, Peddagonehal and 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 direct the respondents to hand over the charge of FP Shop No. 1324019 and issue commodities for Peddagonehal village and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1324019 of Peddagonehal Village, Holagunda Mandal, Kurnool District. While so, due to a minor accident, he applied for leave for one month from 01.07.2019 to 01.08.2019. During the said period, the respondent authorities made alternative arrangements by handing over the stocks to the 4th respondent as an in-charge dealer. After recovery, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent to handover the fair price shop and thereafter, due to covid-19 pandemic, he could not approach the 3rd respondent till 2022. Thereafter, upon representation made by the 3 petitioner, the Tahsildar concerned forwarded the same to the higher authorities for taking a decision on the petitioner’s request for which an endorsement dated 08.12.2025 vide Rc.B.1139/2025 was issued duly stating that the matter was referred to the Sub-Collector for further action. Thereafter, no action has been initiated by the respondents in restoring the dealership of the petitioner nor any orders have been passed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that after completion of the leave period, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for restoration of his dealership. Later, due to covid-19 pandemic he could not pursue the same and pursuant to the Covid period, the petitioner made representations to the 3rd respondent to restore his dealership wherein an endorsement dated 08.12.2025 has been issued informing the petitioner that his request was forwarded to the Sub-Collector, for further action. He further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018, the petitioner can avail leave up to two months and, upon completion of such leave, he is entitled to resume his dealership. He further contended that non-consideration of 4 the petitioner’s request amounts to violation of his rights. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has not made any representation immediately after completion of his leave period and only in the year 2025 did he submit a representation. Upon receipt of the said representation, the Tahsildar forwarded the same to the Sub-Collector, who is the competent authority to take a decision. It is further submitted that as an interim measure, the Village Revenue Officer is distributing essential commodities to the cardholders through the 4th respondent. The writ petition deserves dismissal being meritless, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the permanent dealer of the subject Fair Price Shop. It is also not in dispute that he went on leave for a period of one month due to an accident. Further, the petitioner, after recovery, he made a representation to the respondent authorities to restore his dealership for which an endorsement dated 08.12.2025 was 5 issued by the Tahsildar stating that the petitioner’s request has been forwarded to the Sub-Collector for appropriate orders. There is no material on record to show as to when the petitioner has made a representation. This Court is not inclined to go into the aspect as to whether the petitioner made a representation immediately after the leave period or at a later point of time which is a disputed question of fact. However, since the matter is presently pending before the Sub Collector, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The Sub-Collector is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation for restoration of his authorization of Fair Price Shop No.1324019 of Peddagonehal Village, Holagunda Mandal, Kurnool District, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.” 7. 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: 09th February, 2026 RKS