O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.1/324/2019 dt. .04.2019 cancelling the dealership of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dt.19.02.2011 in so far as it relates to relinquishment of Fair Price Shop of a dealer who got elected as Sarpanch and for a declaration that the G.O.Ms.No.20, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I-CCS) Department, dt.06.09.2018 replacing G.O.Ms.No.4 dt.19.02.2011, as contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Somnath Rath Vs. Bikram K. Arukh and others and is thus illegal and unsustainable and consequently to direct the 2^nd respondent to restore the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders.

1 (1999) 9 SCC 538

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Doma Village of Vikarabad Mandal in respect of Shop No.4106032. In January, 2019, the petitioner was elected to the post of Sarpanch of Doma Village for a period of 5 years. It is submitted that when the Gram Panchayat elections were declared and the petitioner enquired about his eligibility to contest, the 2^nd respondent and other Government authorities told him that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he is entitled to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch while continuing as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the elections and won the election and became the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has issued a notice dt.25.02.2019 to the petitioner to show cause as to why his Fair Price Shop Dealership should not be cancelled for the reason that he has not given any undertaking for relinquishing his Fair Price Shop Dealership after getting elected as Sarpanch, as required under G.O.Ms.No.4 dt.19.02.2011 and thereafter, vide order dt. .04.2019, the 2^nd respondent cancelled his dealership by invoking the provisions of Clause 17(C) of the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is submitted that after completion of his tenure as Sarpanch on 02.02.2024, the petitioner made a representation dt.08.08.2024 to restore his dealership. He also submitted a representation dt.08.08.2021 to the Tahsildar informing him that he is entitled to get back his dealership after completion of his term as Sarpanch. It is submitted that since the petitioner’s representation was not considered and his dealership has not been restored, he has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned cancellation order dt.

.04.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while vehemently reiterating the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Cheekati Parasuram Naidu Vs. Mariserla Venkatarami Naidu and another in support of his contention that being a Fair Price Shop dealership is not a disqualification for contesting the elections. Further, he also submitted that the post of Sarpanch is not an office of profit and therefore, it cannot be considered as an impediment for his continuation as a Fair Price Shop Dealer.

2 AIR 1985 AP 169

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the show-cause notice given to the petitioner, the only allegation was that the petitioner has failed to give an undertaking that he would relinquish his Fair Price Shop Dealership if he is elected to the post of Sarpanch, but in the final order of cancellation, it was stated that he was elected to the post of Sarpanch and therefore, he is not eligible to continue as Dealer of the Fair Shop and since the allegation and the finding are at variance with each other, the finding is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, relied upon the