APHC010298752018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 13568/2018 Between:

Smt C Govindamma ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. T BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. S V MUNI REDDY

2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in appointing the 5^th respondent vide Proceedings L.Dis.B/1777/2018 dated – 4- 2018 (signed on 31-3-2018), without canceling or suspending the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer shop No.11 of Gudyanampalli village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer shop No.11 of Gudyanampalli village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

a. Originally, the daughter of the petitioner, by name, C.Gayathri was appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.11 of Gudyanampalle village and post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor district, on permanent basis, vide proceedings, dated 21.08.2010 issued by the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter, she got married and resigned and thereupon, the petitioner was appointed as a dealer of the subject shop which is meant for ‘SC category’, on temporary basis vide proceedings, dated 21.01.2013, and has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks.

b. While so, all of a sudden, the 3^rd respondent issued notification, vide Roc.B/7465/2015, dated 31.08.2015, inviting applications for filling up the vacancy of the subject shop No.11 treating the said vacancy as ‘Open Category’. As a result, the petitioner was deprived of her right to make an application for the dealership. Questioning the notification, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31697 of 2015 before the High Court. The said writ petition is pending adjudication. The petitioner is being continued as a temporary dealer and has been distributing the commodities to the cardholders. While the things stood thus, the petitioner came to know that the 3^rd respondent has appointed the 5^th respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner, which is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri T.Balaji, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dealership of the subject shop was allotted originally to the daughter of the writ petitioner who belongs to ‘SC’ community, but by virtue of the notification, dated 31.08.2015, it was shown open to the ‘Open Category’ instead of keeping it reserved for the ‘SC’ category. He further submitted that the impugned order shows mala fides as it is shown to be signed on 31.03.2018, whereas it is dated __-04-2018. He further submitted that even a temporary dealer has right of hearing before terminating the dealership, and therefore, the impugned order passed terminating the dealership of the petitioner without there being an order of suspension or cancellation of the dealership, is illegal.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the latest instructions of the Tahsildar, Penumur Mandal, dated 11.10.2024. It is represented that in view of the interim order, dated 18.04.2018, in I.A.No.1 of 2018, the writ