APHC010014522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 872/2025 Between:

Andukuri Anasuya and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. INAPURAPU SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order:

Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent (RDO) in issuing newspaper notification for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of Fair Price Shops without giving notices to the petitioners and without either suspending or cancelling their authorization, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri I.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the dealers for the subject fair price shops on temporary basis and discharging their duties since then without any complaints from anybody whatsoever. He further submitted that, while so, without cancelling the petitioners’ authorization, the 3^rd respondent has issued newspaper notification for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of subject fair price shops inviting applications on or before 10.01.2025 and scheduled written test on 19.01.2025. He further submitted that, if such notification is allowed and anybody is appointed in place of the petitioners, it not only affects the rights of the petitioner, but their livelihood would be at stake.

4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the petitioners cannot question the notification as they are only temporary dealers and the respondent authorities have every authority to appoint permanent dealers through a notification. He further submitted that, if at all the petitioners have an intention to participate in the notification, they can as well participate but cannot question the notification before this Court, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless.

5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel.

price shop dealers for the subject shops. While so, the 3^rd respondent issued newspaper notification for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of subject fair price shops inviting applications on or before 10.01.2025 and scheduled written test on 19.01.2025. The main ground raised by the petitioners is that without cancelling their authorization, the authorities cannot issue notification for appointment of permanent dealers. The petitioners being temporary dealers, do not have any legal right to question the notification issued for filling up the vacancies, moreover, the petitioners can as well make an application pursuant to the notification issued, for the post of permanent fair price shop dealer. In view of the same, the petitioners have not made out any case warranting interference of this Court. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

“The petitioners are at liberty to make an application for post of permanent dealer for the subject fair price shops, pursuant to the notification, issued in the newspaper. Till finalization of such notification, the petitioners shall continue as a temporary fair price shop dealers.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

BRS