Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
M. Kumari, W/o Madhu Sudhakar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 37809, 37974, 37944, 37937, 37913, 37900, 39376, 39389, 37800, 40076, 37975, 39371 Of 2015; Writ Petition Nos.11492, 10794, 10850, 11476, 11021, 10687, 10731, 11621, 11609, 11592, 11586, 11496, 11716, OF 2016
Decided On : 18-10-2022
For the Petitioner: K.S. Murthy.
Headnote:
Petitioners for renewal of their authorizations is illegal, arbitrary – Petitioners in these writ petitions are fair price shop dealers – Some of writ petitions are filed challenging Endorsements issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, District, rejecting applications submitted by petitioners seeking renewal of their authorizations to run fair price shops – Held, It appears, petitioners obtained valid authorizations from competent authority and they were renewed from time to time and finally they have submitted applications for renewal in month – Admittedly, said applications are rejected on ground that petitioners failed to submit original authorizations – It is contention of petitioners that, they submitted applications along with original authorizations and required fee to concerned Tahsildar and Tahsildar has to forward same to competent authority who is vested with power to renew authorization under relevant Control Order – Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are fair price shop dealers. Some of the writ petitions are filed challenging the Endorsements dated 24.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioners seeking renewal of their authorizations to run the fair price shops. Some of the writ petitions are filed against the Notification in Rc.No.A/2636/2015 dated 13.11.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, to fill up the vacancies of the fair price shops in Nandyal Division, wherein the petitioners are working as fair price shop dealers.
2. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, this Court finds it expedient to decide all these cases by common Order.
3. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners – Smt. Thota Suneetha, Sri Surepalli Prasanth, Smt. Rachna S Waddepalli, Smt. Shantisree Elipe and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record.
4. For the sake of convenience, the details of the writ petitions and writ petitioners who filed the writ petitions challenging the Endorsements and Notification are tabulated hereunder :
|
| (A) | (B) | (C) |
|
| Name of the petitioner | w.p. challenging the endorsement(s) | w.p challenging the notification |
| 1 | C.P. Balaramudu | 11492/2016 | 39371/2015 |
| 2 | Somala Naik | 10794/2016 | 37974/2015 |
| 3 | M. Kumari | 10850/2016 | 37809/2015 |
| 4 | Kasa Vani Sreedevi | 10687/2016 | 37975/2015 |
| 5 | J. Venkata Rami Reddy | 10731/2016 | 37900/2015 |
| 6 | K. Srinivasulu | 11621/2016 | 39376/2015 |
| 7 | Shaik Mahaboob Saheb | 11609/2016 | 37913/2015 |
| 8 | J. Subramanyam | 11586/2016 | 37800/2015 |
| 9 | P. Lakshmi Devi | 11496/2016 | 39389/2015 |
| 10 | N.C. Sreenivasulu | 11476/2016 | - |
| 11 | S. Ramakrishnaiah | 11021/2016 | - |
| 12 | Avula Naga Krishnudu | 11592/2016 | - |
| 13 | V. Maddiletti | 11716/2016 | - |
| 14 | N. Maddi Reddy | - | 37944/2015 |
| 15 | E. Nagaraju | - | 37937/2015 |
| 16 | Subhashini | - | 40076/2015 |
5. The Writ Petitioners 1 to 9 who filed writ petitions mentioned in Column No.(B) challenging the endorsements, also filed writ petitions in Column No.(C) challenging the notification.
6. The Writ Petitioners 10 to 13 only filed the writ petitions mentioned in Column No.(B) challenging the endorsements.
7. The Writ Petitioners 14 to 16 only filed the writ petitions mentioned in Column No.(B) challenging the notification.
8. The Petitioners claim is that they have been appointed as Fair Price Shop dealers on permanent basis long back and since then, they have been discharging their duties as Fair Price Shop Dealer without any complaints from any one. Thereafter, the petitioners in W.P.Nos, 10731, 10687, 11716, 11621, 11592, 11586, 11496, 11492, 10850, 11476, 11021, 10794 and 11609 of 2016 applied for renewal of their dealerships and the same were rejected by endorsement of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3/Sub Collector, Nandyal, Kurnool District, issued Notification in Rc.No.A/2636/2015, dated 13.11.2015, for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers on permanent basis in the vacant shops in Nandyal Division, Kurnool District, which were already allotted to the petitioners. Challenging the said Endorsements dated 24.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 and the Notification dated 13.11.2015, the present Writ Petitions are filed.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that appointment of dealers can only be initiated for vacant shops/new shops, but not for Fair Price Shops which are functioning since long time on permanent basis. It is further contended that the petitioners are discharging their duties as Fai
