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) 16384

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
SHAIK MAHABOOB SUBHANI – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 8048/2026



APHC010145112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8048/2026 Between:

1. SHAIK MAHABOOB SUBHANI, S/O. GHAN SAIDA, AGED ABOUT ABOVE 45 YEARS, R/O. TURAKAPALEM VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI / VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned cancellation of authorization orders in Rc.No.225A/2026-B dated 06.03.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article of 14, 19 and 21 and also violation of control order, 2018 Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in FPS No.0725032, on 2008 as a permanent fair price shop dealer operating at Turakapalem Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.225A/2026-B dated 06.03.2026 by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in FPS No.0725032, on 2008 as a permanent fair price shop dealer operating at Turakapalem Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

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

Challenging the order of respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.225A/2026-B dated 06.03.2026, whereby the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price shop bearing No.0725032 of Turakapalem village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District was cancelled, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner was duly appointed as a permanent Fair Price shop dealer for the subject shop. The revenue authorities, on the alleged ground that the petitioner had diverted 15 bags of rice and was involved in Crime No.8 of 2026 of Medikonduru police station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) BNS and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, issued a show cause notice seeking explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 26.02.2026. However, without considering the said explanation, without conducting detailed enquiry, without recording any cogent reasons, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and without permitting cross-examination of witnesses, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the District Collector within 30 days from the date of receipt of impugned order, however, without availing the said statutory remedy, the petitioner has d

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