Notifications for appointing Fair Price Shop dealers must specify the reserved category and the preference for DWCRA group members; failure to do so renders them invalid, and the authority must issue a fresh notification.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer appointments - Reservation policy - Procedure for issuance of notification - Non-specification of reserved category and preference for DWCRA group members in notifications - G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 28-02-2014 - G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03-12-2018 - G.O.Ms.77 dated 02-08-2023 - Principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Administrative Law - Notification - Validity - A notification for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealers which fails to specify the category to which the shop is reserved and the preference to be given to eligible DWCRA group members under Clause IX (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018 and subsequent circular instructions dated 15.09.2024 is liable to be set aside. The respondents are required to issue a fresh notification rectifying these defects. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
Several writ petitions were filed by existing temporary Fair Price Shop dealers, including Self Help Groups (SHGs) and individuals, challenging notifications issued by Revenue Divisional Officers for the appointment of permanent dealers for specific FPS shops across various districts in Andhra Pradesh (Chittoor, Kakinada, Konaseema, Annamayya). The petitioners alleged that these notifications were illegal and arbitrary as they did not follow the rule of reservation (including roster points as per G.O.Ms.77 dated 02-08-2023), were issued without prior notice, violated principles of natural justice, and were contrary to the procedures laid down in G.O.Ms.No.4 and G.O.Ms.No.32. The petitioners sought to set aside the notifications and to be continued as dealers.

Findings of Court:
The court, following its earlier common order in W.P. No. 31505 of 2024 and batch, found that the impugned notifications were defective because they did not specify the category to which the Fair Price Shop had been reserved, nor did they mention the preference to be given to DWCRA group members falling under Clause IX (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.32 and subsequent circular instructions dated 15.09.2024. The court directed the respondents to specify these details in fresh notifications. (Paras 13, 14)

Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned notifications for appointing permanent FPS dealers were legally valid and in compliance with applicable Government Orders and circulars, specifically regarding the specification of reservation categories and preference for DWCRA groups.

Ratio Decidendi: Notifications for selection and appointment of Fair Price Shop dealers must clearly specify the reserved category for the shop and provide for the receipt of applications from DWCRA group members who are eligible as per the relevant Government Orders and circulars. Failure to do so renders the notifications invalid. The respondents are to be given an opportunity to issue fresh, compliant notifications. Result : Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned notifications pertaining to the petitioners’ Fair Price Shops are set aside. The respondents are at liberty to issue fresh notifications in accordance with the court's directions. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed. (Para 14, 15)

Table of Content
1. case filings seeking relief against fp shop dealer notifications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)

COMMON ORDER

Writ Petition No.46346 of 2018 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent issuing Notification in Roc.C1/367/2018, Dt.05.12.2018 for filling up the FP Shop Dealer under BC-B(Women) Category without following the rule of reservation for shop No.19 of Maneendram Village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District is illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.”

2. Writ Petition No.1268 of 2025 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 5^th Respondent in issuing notification vide Ref. No. D/483/Karapa/0436024/2024 dated 01-01-2025 for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of Shop No.0436024 situated at China Mamidada village of Karapa Mandal of Kakinada District is contrary to the GO.Ms.No.4 dated 28- 02-2014 and GO.Ms.No.32 dated 03-12-2018 without issuing prior notice without following procedure and without following roster points contrary to GO.Ms.77 dated 02-08-2023 despite representations dated 10-10-2024 and 14-10-2024 as illegal, arbitrary. Capricious, colorable exercise of power, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the law laid down by Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in M. Vanaja Vs. B. Balaseshanna and others, 2007 (4) ALD 388 (FB), apart from violation of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 and 350 of Constitution of India and set aside the notification dated 01-01- 2025 forthwith in the interest of justice, consequently, continue the petitioner as dealer to the FPS No.0436024 by supplying commodities as usual forthwith in the interest of justice…”

3. Writ Petition No.2404 of 2025 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the Notifications issued by the 4^th respondent vide Rf.A/06/2025 dt-03-01-2025; Rf.A/06/2025 dt 03-01-2025; Rf.A/06/2025 dt-03-01-2025 and Rf.A/11/2025 dt-3-1-2025 for appointment of permanent dealers for FP Shops in respect of Shop Nos.0458011; 0458006; 0458022 and 0453033 located at Amalapuram Revenue Division of Konaseema Dist., instead of regularizing the petitioners existing dealership without following the roster fixed in G.O.Ms.No.77 General Administration (Services-D) Department dt-2-8-2023 is illegal, arbitrary, and volatile of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside notification dt-03-01-2025 (to the extent of present shops are concerned) and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as fair price shop dealers for their respective shops as permanent dealers by regularizing the petitioners authorization.”

4. Writ Petition No.1218 of 2025 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 4^th Respondent in issuing notification dated 01-01-2025 more for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of ration shops vide (1) Shop Nos.0483056 situated at Wards-14,13 of Kakinada Urban Mandal of 1^st petitioner (2) Shop No.0435041 situated at Pedapudi village and Mandal of 2^nd petitioner (3) Shop No.0435014 situated at Peddada village of Pedapudi Mandal of 3^rd petitioner and (4) shop No.0483103 of ward-35 of Kakinada Urban Mandal of 4th petitioner and all are pertains to of Kakinada Division and District is contrary to the GO Ms.No.4 dated 28-02-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21682

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHV.SUJATHAATTAR SAHAZANEEN – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF AP – RespondentWP 5592/2025

Notifications for appointing Fair Price Shop dealers must specify the reserved category and the preference for DWCRA group members; failure to do so renders them invalid, and the authority must issue a fresh notification.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
ATTAR SAHAZANEEN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 5592/2025