2025:APHC:5390 APHC010055402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3261/2025 Between:

Ravipati Kondaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MULLA SOHAIL SHAREEF Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

ORDER:

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

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.CS3/98/2024, dated 10.01.2025, in contrary to the Go.Ms.No.10 dated 03.09.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same, and pass…”

02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.0813022, Samanthapudi Village, Darsi Mandal, by the 4^th respondent. While so, the 5^th respondent issued a notice vide R.C.B/286/2024, dated 05.10.2024 stating that as per orders vide Rc.CS3/98/2024, dated 30.09.2024, bifurcation of fair price shops is taking place, which have more than 800 cards, and as there are 990 cards in petitioner’s fair price shop and further directing the petitioner to submit objections within 3 days from the receipt of notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.10.2024 along with the signatures of the villagers, stating that there is no inconvenience to the villagers to get fair price goods from him. Without considering the same, the impugned order of bifurcating the petitioner’s fair price shop was passed by the 3 ^rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS3/98/2024, dated 10.01.2025. Thus, the writ petition was filed.

03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the explanation was submitted by the petitioner, he had failed to submit that number of death and migrant cads were not deleted from the total list of cards attached to the fair price shop of the petitioner and an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to submit a fresh explanation as it is required to find out the exact number of cards available for making bifurcation. He further submitted that the number of cards attached to the petitioner in the impugned order was economically viable for running his family. He further stated that all the villagers have submitted representation signed by them to retain single shop and not to bifurcate the shop stating that the petitioner had been attending to the needs of the cardholders and not causing any inconvenience.

04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instruction of the 3^rd respondent, dated 10.02.2025, and submitted that bifurcation was done as per the existing norms and the impugned proceeding does not require any interference. 05. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner had not mentioned about the death cards and the migration cards in his explanation and as such the same has not been considered by the authorities. But, it cannot be last sight, as no such exercise has been independently done by the authorities. This Court previously had given instructions to consider such exercise before identifying the shops for bifurcation on ascertaining actual figure of 800 existing cards by Order dated 06.01.2025 in W.P.No.27510 of 2024 and batch. Moreover, in the present case, only three days time was given after receipt of notice for submission of explanation by the petitioner. In fact, circular instructions vide CCS.Ref.No.FCS02-N021/21/1/2024-AD, dated 11.09.2024, were given by the 2^nd respondent to provide time of seven days and withdraw the notices, in which only three days time was given, however, no fresh notice has been given to the petitioner giving due time to su