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) 10592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
R G MADDILETY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 11415/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: 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.

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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings Appeal Case No.CS.3/10/2025 dated 19.04.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, confirming the Rc.DT(LR)1421/2024 Proceedings dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No. 1318026, K. Markapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without considering the contentions in the appeal, 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 to stay the Proceedings Appeal Cas No.CS.3/10/2025 dated 19.04.2025 issued by the 2 respondent well as as the proceedings RC.DT(LR)1421/2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3 respondent duly permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Pric Shop No. No.1318026, K. Markapuram Village, Kallu Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ petitio and pass

IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to implead as Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.l 1415/2025 in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in W.P.No.l 1415/2025 dated 08-05-2025 passed by this Honhle Court in the interest of justice.

The Court made the following ORDER

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.

The petitioner submitted his expla

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