APHC010080332026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 163 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-38 [3446] Mude Chandra Naik ...Appellant Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Vutupalli Rajanna Advocates for Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies – R1 to R4, Mr. V. R. Reddy Kovvuri – R5 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 9th April, 2026. P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2025, passed in W.P.No.5255 of 2025, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein, who was a temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner had challenged the appointment of one Sri C. Jaghadeesh/respondent No.5 herein, as a Fair Price Shop Dealer for shop No.1146014, situate in Vanarachapalli Village, primarily on the ground that respondent No.5 was a resident of Cheruvukindapalli Village, and therefore, was not eligible to be appointed as such. 3. The stand of the official respondents, on the other hand, is that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer for a period of six months from HCJ & RRRJ WA_163_2026 October, 2012 to March, 2013 and subsequently, the said shop was notified as vacant and notification, dated 07.12.2024, was issued, for filling up the vacancy from eligible applicants, which led to the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 in accordance with the rules. 4. It is also stated that the Vanarachapalli as also Cheruvukindapalli Villages are hamlets of Madithadu-2 Revenue Village, falling under T.Sundupalli Mandal, as per the certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, T. Sundupalli. A copy of the said certificate has been produced before us, during the course of hearing. 5. If that be so, then it cannot be said that selected respondent No.5 was in any manner ineligible to be considered for appointment for the Fair Price Shop in question, which appears to be a part of the same revenue village, Madithadu-2. 6. In that view of the matter, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. SSN