APHC010007942025 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: 435/2025 Between:

Sri Vaishnavi Mahila Sakthi Sangam and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

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

Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

Aggrieved by the action of the 5^th respondent (RDO) in issuing notification dated 28.12.2024 vide Ref/D.1753/Rajamahendravaram Rural/0429057/2024 for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of FP Shop No.0429057 situated in Dwalaiswaram, Rajamahendravaram rural, East Godavari District, without either suspending or cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Ms K.Sri Lakshmi, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Department.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer for the subject shop on temporary basis vide proceedings dated 15.04.2010 and discharging her duties since then without any complaints from anybody whatsoever. She further submitted that, while so, without suspending or cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, the 5^th respondent has issued notification for appointment of permanent dealers in respect of subject fair price shop. She further submitted that, if such notification is allowed and anybody is appointed in place of the petitioner, it not only affects the right of the petitioner, but her livelihood would be at stake.

4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the petitioner cannot question the notification as she is only a temporary dealer and the respondent authorities have every authority to appoint permanent dealers through a notification. He further submitted that, if at all the petitioner has an intention to participate in the notification, she can as well participate in the same 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 petitioner is appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for the subject shop. While so, the 5^th respondent has issued notification dated 28.12.2024 for appointment of permanent dealer. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that without cancelling their authorization, the authorities cannot issue notification for appointment of permanent dealers. The petitioner being a temporary dealer, do not have any legal right to question the notification issued for filling up the vacancies, moreover, the petitioner can as well make an application pursuant to the notification, for the post of permanent fair price shop dealer. In view of the same, the petitioner has 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 petitioner is at liberty to make an application for post of permanent dealer for the subject fair price shops, pursuant to the notification dated 28.12.2024 vide Ref/D.1753/Rajamahendravaram Rural/0429057/2024. Till finalization of such notification, the petitioner shall continue as a temporary fair price shop dealer.”

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

BRS