APHC010226662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 857 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3584] M Kishor Kumar ...Appellant Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: K SRINIVAS Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 20th July 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred writ appeal assailing the dismissal of writ petition vide order dated 29.10.2025. 2. (a) Appellant/writ petitioner's father initially was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.19, Kankaveedu Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District. On the demise of appellant's father, appellant came to be appointed as fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds. (b) During the inspection conducted on 23.01.2025, as it was found that appellant indulged in irregularities in distribution of the 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.857 of 2026 stock, after issuing a show-cause notice and considering the explanation of the appellant, the 4th respondent had cancelled the authorization vide orders dated 10.06.2015. The same came to be challenged in W.P. No.18000 of 2015 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by setting aside the impugned cancellation order. (c) Yet again, another show-cause notice was issued calling upon appellant to submit explanation and after considering the explanation so made, the 4th respondent had passed second cancellation order dated 25.07.2015. Appellant stated to have preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent on 10.08.2015, which was within the limitation. (d) While appeal was pending before 3rd respondent, as by notification dated 11.12.2017 applications were sought for making a permanent appointment as fair price shop dealer to the subject shop, applicant was constrained to file W.P.No.43605 of 2017. The same came to be disposed of by order dated 02.01.2018, directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. As no order came to be passed even beyond the time specified, yet again, 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.857 of 2026 appellant had preferred W.P. No.26959 of 2024, however, the same has been dismissed as infructuous, as already appropriate directions were issued in earlier writ petition. Only thereafter, appellant came to be communicated through endorsement dated 22.01.2025 informing that the appeal had already been dismissed of vide orders dated 30.04.2016. (e) The dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay has been contested before learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, came to conclusion that the appeal was dismissed way back on 17.05.2016 itself and therefore, dismissed the writ petition. (g) Assailing the same, present writ appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for appellant and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contends that though the appellant had preferred the Appeal on 10.08.2015 challenging the second cancellation order dated 25.07.2015, which was very much within time, the appellate authority, treating 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.857 of 2026 the same to be beyond the period of limitation, dismissed the same, which is contrary to the material on record. To buttress aforesaid argument, learned counsel has taken us through the pleadings in the writ petition to show that appeal has been preferred within time, besides referring to the memorandum of appeal and the interlocutory application filed therein seeking stay of the impugned cancellation order. Thus, learned counsel has urged to call for records before Joint Collector to ascertain whether the appeal was preferred within time, in particular on 10.08.2015. 5. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has produced written inspections dated 18.07.2026 along with copy of Vakalat and appeal grounds, further the order of appellate authority dismissing the appeal and would submit that the appeal was never presented on 10.08.2015 as alleged, rather it was presented only on 19.03.2016 beyond the period of limitation and further that the order of dismissal has been communicated to the counsel who was on record on 17.05.2016 itself. Learned counsel further pointed out that the counsel, who had filed vakalat namely ‘T.Muralidhar Reddy’ was the one who received the copy of the appellate order, as can be seen from the endorsement made over 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.857 of 2026 the copy of the order, therefore, would urge for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Perused the record and we have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels. 7. The second cancellation order came to be passed on 25.07.2015. Appellant claims to have preferred appeal before the Joint Collector on 10.08.2015. In the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, it has been merely pleaded that appeal was filed within stipulated time, conspicuously, the date of filing of appeal is not mentioned. When we have pointed out to learned counsel for appellant to show as to whether any endorsement has been issued by appellate authority confirming the factum of receipt of appeal, he fairly admitted that there was no such endorsement, rather, he was all through pointing out to the date mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal as the date of presentation of appeal. Whereas, in the impugned order, in reference No.2, it has been specifically mentioned that appeal has been preferred through counsel on 19.03.2016 and even appeal has been numbered as Rc.CS.3/76/2016, meaning thereby that no such appeal was even preferred during the year 2015. 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.857 of 2026 8. That apart, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the appellant had maintained silence in pursuing the appeal before the Joint Collector when admittedly he was kept away from distributing the commodities. 9. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity for us to interfere with. 10. Accordingly, this writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS