Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 1290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
R.G. Maddilety, S/o. Ramallakota Lakshmanna – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11415 of 2025
Decided On : 02-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Mahadeva Kanthrigala
For the Respondents: Sazid Kallur, GP for Civil Supplies
A Fair Price Shop dealer is legally disqualified from holding any public office, including the position of Sarpanch, under the AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018; failure to resign from such office warrants cancellation of the dealership authorization.
Headnote:The case involves the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018. The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop dealer, challenged the cancellation of his authorization based on two charges: stock variations found during inspection and the fact that he was serving as a Sarpanch. The court found that the cancellation was justified as the petitioner held a public office. The primary issue was whether a Fair Price Shop dealer can simultaneously hold a public office such as Sarpanch. The court reasoned that under Clause 17(e) of Form-II of the Control Order, 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.32, individuals holding public office are ineligible to be dealers, stating that once elected as Sarpanch, the individual must either resign the dealership or the public post. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
The case of the petitioner is that he is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1318026 of K.Markapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. While so, the Tahsildar-the 4th respondent herein submitted a report vide Lr.No.Rc.No.B.976/2024 dated 27.11.2024 alleging that on 26.11.2024, the Tahsildar-the 4th respondent and the Village Revenue Officer went to petitioner's shop for inspection in the presence of mediators and found certain variations in the stock. Basing on the said report, a show cause notice was issued vide Rc.DT(LR)1421/2024 dated 29.11.2024 asking the petitioner to submit explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled, by framing the following two charges:-
“Charge I:- That the inspection team noticed PDS Fortified Rice 1780 Kgs, Reg Gram 743 Kgs plus and Jowar 190 Kgs are less and MDM Jaggery 5 Pkts, MDM Fortified Rice (3 Kgs Pkt) 7, and MDM P.oil 14 Pkts are excess in the ground balance of the FP Shop No.1318026. Therefore the variation of stock found in the ground balance, it is clearly established the facts that the dealer has indulged in the malpractices in the distribution of ECs to the cardholders under public distribution system, there by violated clause 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, minor variation in respect of single Commodity upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month.
Charge II:- That the inspection team noticed that the dealer is acted as Sarpanch, thereby contravened the cause XII of GO.Ms.No.32 CA, F&CS (CS.I) Dept, Dt.03.12.2008 and the conditions of the Authorization under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.”
Consequently, the petitioner's authorization was suspended by virtue of proceedings dated 06.12.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent herein.
2. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. However, without considering the said explanation, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer passed the impugned proceedings vide Rc.DT(LR)1421/2024 dated 29.11.2024 cancelling the petitioner's authorization. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector vide Appeal Case No.CS.3/10/2025, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sazid Kallur, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
4. In elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities are unsustainable, inasmuch as they have been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's explanation was not considered at all. The authorities have not applied their independent mind while passing impugned orders. Only to wreak vengeance and due to political pressure, such orders have been passed. In fact, at the time of inspection, the shop was locked, but despite the same, they broke open and inspected the shop, which is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'Control Order, 2018'). Insofar as other charge is concerned, at the time of nomination as Sarpanch, the authorities, being fully aware that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer, did not object for his nomination and in the said view of fact, they cannot now contend that the petitioner is a Sarpanch and petitioner's authorization is liable for cancellation. As the orders impugned are passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, they are liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Sri Sazid Kollur, learned counsel representing respondent No.5 (the cardholder), submitted that the petitioner, who has been elected as Sarpanch, is not supplying essential commodities properly. The said fact was brought to the notice of th
