SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 4286

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
R KAMALAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 9732/2025



APHC010182192025 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: 9732/2025 Between:

1. R KAMALAMMA, W/O RAMAVATH BALU NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO. 1204011, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, BODISANIPALLI VILLAGE, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

2. THE COLLECTOR CS, JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring Proceedings Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025 dated 25.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No.

1204011, Bodisanipalli Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without considering the factual aspect that the petitioner, without following the procedure and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2018 and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders_and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay the Proceedings Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025 dated 25.03.2025 issued by the 3 respondent duly permitting the petitioner to distribute essential commodities to the card holders in respect of Fair Price Shop No. No.1204011, Bodisanipalli Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

ORDER The writ petition has been filed questioning the proceedings vide Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025, dated 25.03.2025 of respondent no.3 cancelling the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.1204011, Bodisanipalli Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as F.P.shop dealer of the subject F.P.shop on permanent basis and ever since she had been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders. It is the further case of the petitioner that basing on the report of the respondent no.4-Tahsildar dated 09.01.2025 alleging that variation in stock was found during inspection, the respondent no.3-the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued show cause notice dated 12.02.2025 calling for explanation and in response the petitioner submitted detailed explanation denying the charges, however, the respondent no.3, without application of mind and without considering the explanation, with a prejudiced mind, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner vide the impugned proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioner that, respondent no.3, without supplying copy of the panchanama, without conducting enquiry and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, passed the impugned orders and therefore, the impugned proceedings having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice besides in violation of the procedure contemplated under law, are liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Governme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top