APHC010150802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7968/2025 Between:

Sri Raja Rajeswari Self Help Group and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

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

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

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

Aggrieved by the action of the 2^nd respondent (District Collector) in trying to issue notification for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of FP Shop Nos.0433013, 0433017, 0433039, 0433018, 0433016, 0433012, 0433034, 0433002, 0433008 situated in Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, without considering their representation dated 23.07.2024 for issuance of authorization in their names, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri MMM.Srinivasa Rao, 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 affidavit contended that the petitioners have been appointed as fair price shop dealer for the subject shops on temporary basis on 14.11.2013 & 14.11.2016 and discharging their duties since then without any complaints from anybody whatsoever. He further submitted that, while so, without cancelling the petitioners’ authorization, the 2^nd respondent is trying to issue notification for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of subject fair price shops. He further submitted that, the petitioners have made an application dated 23.07.2024 requesting the authorities to consider their case for issuance of permanent authorization in their names but so far, the authorities have not taken any action. 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.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealers for the subject shops. While so, the 2^nd respondent is trying to issue notification for appointment of permanent dealers. 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, if any, for filling up the vacancies and moreover, the petitioners can as well make an application pursuant to the notification if any, 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, if any issued. 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 applicat