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) 14853

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
SRI BADE YADAVA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 12679/2025



APHC010247072025 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: 12679/2025 Between:

1. SRI BADE YADAVA RAO, S/O LATE DILLESU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0134055, R/O YEKUVURU VILLAGE SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPT.,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

3. THE COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALASA,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

5. THE TAHSILDAR, SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

6. CHIKATI RAJULAMMA, W/O DURYODANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCTEMPORARY F.P SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.0134055, YEKUVURU-VILLAGE, SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURTS ORDER DT.11.02.2026 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2025 ...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 to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order to declaring the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District, the 4th respondent herein vide Rc.No.113/2025/ DT(LR) dt.24.04.2025. Cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, without conducting enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in utter violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and set aside the same by restoring to supply essential commodities to the petitioner 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 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 implead the petitioner/proposed Respondent as party Respondent No 6 in the above wp No. 12679/2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:

ORDER The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 24.04.2025 passed vide Rc.No.113/2025/DT(LR) by respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District, cancelling the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.0134055, Yekuvuru Village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakkulam District.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as F.P.shop dealer of the subject F.P.shop on permanent basis and ever since he had been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders. It is the further case of the petitioner that alleging variation of stock and further on the grounds that he failed to keep notice board in the conspicuous place of the shop, failed to make available stock register and electronically generated slips for a minimum period of one year and failed to keep stock register for variations, the respondent no.4-Revenue Divisional Officer issued show cause notice dated 12.02.2025, for which the petitioner submitted suitable explanation, but without considering the explanation, without conducting enquiry, without giving any reasons and even without following the control orders, the respondent no.4 passed the impugned orders cancelling and terminating the dealership of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard Sri M.Gnaneswara Rao learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

4. Sri M.Gnaneswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reit

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