(Prayer: 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.D2/83/2019 dt.24-6-2022 suspending the proceedings dt.10-5-2022 and restoring the proceedings dt.6-8-2021 with regard to substituting petitioner's surname as Vanguri in the place of Kota in the authorization issued under Clause 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 in respect of the F.P. Shop No.616012 situated at Circle-III, Vijayawada Town, NTR Dist., without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity of being heard is illegal, arbitrary, and volatile of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings dt.24-6-2022 and further direct the 3rd respondent to issue authorization in the name of Kota Radha Rukmini as usual and pass any other order this Honourable Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 may be pleased to Suspend the proceedings vide Rc.D2/83/2019 dt:24-6- 2022 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 may be pleased to Direct the 3"1 respondent to issue authorization on the name of Kota Radha Rukmini respect of the F.P. Shop No.616012 situated at Circle-III, Vijayawada Town, NTR Dist, pending disposal of the writ petition.

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

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 pleased to implead the proposed respondent No.6 as Respondent No.6 in W.P.No. 6776 of 2023 as well as in interlocutory applications and pass

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the official respondents particularly the action of the 4th respondent under impugned Endorsement dated 09-10-2025 bearing Rc. ASO/3/7/2023, whereby refused to take action regarding change of address of F.P.Shop No.0616012 of Vijayawada on the pretext of pendency of W.P.No.6776 of 2023 in this Honble Court and O.S.No.43 of 2021 and O.S.No.903 of 2019 pending on the file of the Court of the Honble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada is arbitrary, illegal and violative and contravention of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and conditions of license and consequently direct the official respondents to conduct de-nova enquiry on the petitioners complaint and take action by following due process of law and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 pleased to direct the official respondents to conduct de-nova enquiry by following due process of law on the complaint of the petitioner in respect of change of address of F.P.Shop No.0616012, Circle-Ill, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass)

Common Order:

1. Both these writ petitions are filed by different petitioners, however, the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, I feel it appropriate to decide both the matters by way of a common order, by taking W.P.No.6776 of 2023 as a main case and the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.6776 of 2023

2. W.P.No.6776 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:

                  “to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.D2/83/2019 dt.24-6-2022 suspending the proceedings dt.10-5-2022 and restoring the proceedings dt.6-8-2021 with regard to substituting petitioner's surname as Vanguri in the place of Kota in the authorization issued under Clause 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 in respect of the F.P. Shop No.616012 situated at Circle-III, Vijayawada Town, NTR Dist., without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity of being heard is illegal, arbitrary, and volatile of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings dt.24-6-2022 and further direct the 3rd respondent to issue authorization in the name of Kota Radha Rukmini as usual and pass..”

3. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.616012 situated at Circle-III, Vijayawada town, NTR District in the year 1994 under widow category and ever since, she has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint from any corner. Originally, the petitioner married one Vanguri Rajkumar, however, due to his demise in the year 1994, the petitioner married one Kota Srinivasa Rao in the year 1995. The case of the petitioner is that the said Kota Srinivasa Rao executed a Will dated 08.10.2016 in her favour bequeathing his properties. As the said Kota Srinivasa Rao died on 09.04.2019, the 5th respondent – claiming to be the wife of late Kota Srinivasa Rao and the brother of Kota Srinivasa Rao by name “Kota Murali Krishna‟ – 6th respondent, conspired together to grab the properties of late Kota Srinivasa Rao. As such, the petitioner filed O.S.No.1903 of 2019 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking permanent injunction restraining the 5th respondent and others from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties bequeathed by her. Pending the said suit, the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.43 of 2021 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking declaration that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Kota Srinivasa Rao and to issue family member certificate in her favour.

4. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2021, the petitioner applied for renewal of her authorization and to accord permission to shift the fair price shop to door No.1-85, Ramalayam veedhi, near Sai Baba temple, Ramavarappadu. While processing the application of the petitioner, the 4th respondent – Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-3 identified that the previous officer, while renewing the petitioner‟s authorization in the year 2019 has mentioned petitioner‟s name as “Kota Radha Rukmini‟ instead of “Vanguri Radha Rukmini‟ without any base. As such, the 4th respondent submitted proposals for renewal of authorization of the petitioner duly referring her name as “Vanguri Radha Rukmini‟ and requested the 3rd respondent to make necessary changes in the authorization of the petitioner. Considering the same, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 06.08.2021, renewed the authorization of the petitioner from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2023 and the name of the petitioner was mentioned as “Vanguri Radha Rukmini‟ instead of “Kota Radha Rukmini‟. Further, the petitioner was granted permission to run the subject fair price shop at door No.1-85, Ramalayam veedhi, near Sai Baba temple, Ramavarappadu. At this juncture, the 6th respondent addressed a letter to the respondent authorities on 21.08.2021 stating that the house bearing door No.1-85, Ramalayam street, Near Saibaba temple, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada originally belongs to his brother i.e. Kota Srinivasa Rao and due to his demise on 09.04.2019, the 5th respondent, being the wife of Kota Srinivasa Rao became the rightful owner of the said property and got registered the aforementioned property in favour of the 6th respondent on 31.07.2019 vide registered sale deed bearing document No.5709 of 2019 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Gunadala, Vijayawada. As the petitioner was permitted to shift the subject fair price shop to door No.1-85, Ramalayam veedhi, near Sai Baba temple, Ramavarappadu, the 6th respondent requested the respondent officials to enquire into the matter and initiate action against the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 4th respondent stating that her husband by name “Kota Srinivasa Rao‟ died on 09.04.2019 and that she being his wife, displayed her name on the board of the subject fair price shop as “Kota Radha Rukmini‟ and that the same surname reflects in Aadhar card, voter card, ration card, electricity bill etc. Thereafter, the 4th respondent verified the requisite documents and noticed that the surname of the petitioner is “Kota‟. While the matter stood thus, the 5th respondent sent a legal notice dated 02.05.2021 to the respondent authorities stating that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.43 of 2021 on the file of Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for the aforementioned purpose and requested to take necessary action against the petitioner herein. The 3rd respondent, after considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, vide proceedings dated 10.05.2022, permitted the petitioner herein to continue displaying her name as “Kota Radha Rukmini‟ temporarily, pending final outcome of the civil suit filed by the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 10.05.2022, the 5th respondent herein filed W.P.No.18003 of 2022 before this Court, which was later withdrawn on 20.07.2022. Pending the said writ petition, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 got issued another legal notice to the 3rd respondent on 15.06.2022 with a request to enquire into the matter and to cancel the proceedings dated 10.05.2022. The 3rd respondent, considering the fact that the suits filed by the petitioner before the Courts below are pending adjudication, suspended the operation of the proceedings dated 10.05.2022 and restored the proceedings dated 06.08.2021, vide impugned proceedings dated 24.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6776 of 2023.

7. Pursuant to the letter addressed by the 6th respondent to the official respondents on 21.08.2021, the 4th respondent, vide endorsement dated 09.10.2025, informed the 6th respondent as under:

                  “It is further informed that the case is presently sub judice, as civil suits O.S.No.43/2021 & O.S.No.903/2019 are pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and W.P.No.6776/2023 is pending before the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

                  Hence, as per the report dated 28.10.2024 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, the complaint is not yet resolved till date. Final action will be taken only after receipt of orders from the Hon‟ble Court.”

                  Aggrieved by the above endorsement, the 6th respondent filed W.P.No.31655 of 2025.

8. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner submitted an application to the Joint Collector, Krishna for renewal of authorization for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2021 in the name “V. Radha Kumari‟ and accordingly, her authorization was renewed on 27.05.2019 in the name of “Kota Radha Rukmini‟. As it was subsequently found that the authorization was issued to the petitioner in the name of “Kota Radha Rukmini‟, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 06.08.2021, corrected the surname of the petitioner as “Vanguri‟ instead of “Kota‟. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a representation on 05.11.2021 stating that her husband “Kota Srinivasa Rao‟ died on 09.04.2019 and that she being his wife, even as per aadhar card, voter card, ration card, electricity bill etc., displayed her name in the subject fair price shop as “Kota Radha Rukmini‟. Upon verification, the 4th respondent reported that the surname of the petitioner is “Kota‟. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 issued a legal notice on 02.05.2022 stating that the petitioner has filed a suit (O.S.No.43 of 2021 on the file of Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada) for declaring her as the wife of late Kota Srinivasa Rao. Considering the contentions putforth by respondent Nos.5 and 6, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 10.05.2022, permitted the petitioner to display her name on the board of the subject fair price shop as “Kota Radha Rukmini‟ pending result of the cases pending before the Courts below.

9. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that for cancellation of the aforesaid proceedings dated 10.05.2022, the 5th and 6th respondents submitted a representation dated 09.06.2022 and issued a legal notice dated 15.06.2022; pursuant to the same, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 24.06.2022 suspended the operation of the earlier proceedings dated 10.05.2022. It is further stated that the authorization of the petitioner can be renewed in the name of “Vanguri Radha Rukmini‟ alone as her appointment was under the same name. The 3rd respondent further stated that civil cases are pending before the Court below that are filed by the petitioner with regard to certain properties belonging to late Kota Srinivasa Rao and also for declaring her as wife of late Kota Srinivasa Rao. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

10. The 6th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, duly denying the contentions raised by the petitioner and further stated that the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate her rights before this Court, when she has already filed civil suits before the Courts below. The petitioner, having admitted that her status as wife of late Kota Srinivasa Rao is pending adjudication before the Civil Court, she cannot seek any remedy before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

11. Heard Sri. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6; and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the entire material available on record.

12. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.616012, situated at Circle-III, Vijayawada Town, NTR District, in the year 1994 under the widow category. Initially, the petitioner married one Vanguri Rajkumar; however, upon his demise in 1994, she married one Kota Srinivasa Rao in the year 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that Kota Srinivasa Rao executed a Will dated 08.10.2016 in her favour, bequeathing his properties. Upon the death of Kota Srinivasa Rao on 09.04.2019, the 5th respondent and 6th respondent, allegedly conspired to acquire the properties of late Kota Srinivasa Rao. Consequently, the petitioner filed O.S. No.1903 of 2019 before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, seeking permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.5 and 6 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner also instituted O.S. No.43 of 2021 on the file of Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, seeking a declaration that she is the wife of late Kota Srinivasa Rao and for issuance of a family member certificate in her favour. While so, in the year 2021, the petitioner applied for renewal of her authorization and sought permission to shift the fair price shop to door No.1-85, Ramalayam Veedhi, near Sai Baba Temple, Ramavarappadu. While processing the said application, the 4th respondent identified that the earlier officer, while renewing the petitioner‟s authorization has mentioned the petitioner‟s name as “Kota Radha Rukmini” instead of “Vanguri Radha Rukmini” and as such, the 4th respondent requested the 3rd respondent to make necessary corrections in the authorization. Considering the same, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 06.08.2021, renewed the petitioner‟s authorization for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2023 and corrected her name as “Vanguri Radha Rukmini,” and granted permission to operate the fair price shop at Door No.1- 85, Ramalayam Veedhi, near Sai Baba Temple, Ramavarappadu.

13. Admittedly, pursuant to the proceedings dated 06.08.2021, the 6th respondent addressed a letter to the authorities claiming that the property bearing Door No.1-85 originally belonged to his brother, Kota Srinivasa Rao, and that upon his death on 09.04.2019, the 5th respondent, being his wife, became the rightful owner. In the said letter, the 6th respondent further stated that the said property was registered in his favour on 31.07.2019 by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.5709 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Gunadala, Vijayawada. As such, the 6th respondent requested the authorities to enquire into the matter and take action against the petitioner for shifting the Fair Price Shop to the said premises without any basis. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 4th respondent, stating that her husband, Kota Srinivasa Rao, died on 09.04.2019 and that, she being his wife, displayed her name as “Kota Radha Rukmini” on the Fair Price Shop. Further, the petitioner contended that the surname “Kota‟ is reflected in her Aadhaar card, voter ID, ration card, electricity bill, and other records. Upon verification of the relevant documents, the 4th respondent concluded that the petitioner‟s surname is “Kota.” At that stage, the 5th respondent issued a legal notice dated 02.05.2021 to the respondent authorities, referring to the pendency of O.S. No.43 of 2021 and seeking appropriate action against the petitioner. After considering the facts and circumstances, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 10.05.2022, permitted the petitioner to temporarily display her name as “Kota Radha Rukmini,” subject to the final outcome of the pending civil suits. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 10.05.2022, the 5th respondent filed W.P. No.18003 of 2022 before this Court. During pendency of the said writ petition, respondent Nos.5 and 6 issued another legal notice dated 15.06.2022 to the 3rd respondent, requesting to conduct an enquiry and to cancel the proceedings dated 10.05.2022. Keeping in view the fact that the civil suits filed by the petitioner were still pending adjudication, the 3rd respondent suspended the proceedings dated 10.05.2022 and restored the earlier proceedings dated 06.08.2021, vide the impugned proceedings dated 24.06.2022.

14. A perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.1903 of 2019 and O.S.No.43 of 2020 before the Courts below seeking the following prayer:

                  “Prayer in O.S.No.1903 of 2019:

                  Permanent in junction restraining the Defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiff by virtue of her title to the properties under the Will Dt.08-10- 2016 executed by her husband Srinivasa Rao, consequentially, Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from creating any encumbrances either by way of sale, gift Mortgage or by entering any kind of agreements and document claiming the plaint schedule properties under any document especially under the Void Gift Deeds.

                  Prayer in O.S.No.43 of 2020:

                  Declaring that the Petition is the Wife of Late Kota Srinivasa Rao and the only Family member and Legal heirs of late Kota Srinivasa Rao who died on 09-042019 leaving behind a Notarised Will Dt.08-10-2016, Consequentially, Directing the 2nd Respondent to issue Family Members Certificate to the Petitioner as the only Family Member of Late Kota Srinivasa Rao.”

15. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, vide proceedings dated 06.08.2021 have changed the name of the petitioner in the authorization as “Vanguri Radha Rukmini‟ instead of “Kota Radha Rukmini‟. The grievance of the 6th respondent (petitioner in W.P.No.31655 of 2025) is that without any basis, the respondent authorities have permitted the petitioner to shift the subject fair price shop to door No.1-85, Ramalayam Veedhi, near Sai Baba Temple, Ramavarappadu and that no action is being initiated pursuant to the letter addressed by him on 21.08.2021. Admittedly, both the issues are pending adjudication before the Courts below in the civil suits filed by the petitioner as mentioned above. It is well settled law that when the issues involved in a writ petition are directly and substantially the subject matter of adjudication before a competent civil Court, this Court would not ordinarily exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ jurisdiction is discretionary and ought not to be invoked to decide disputed questions of fact or to render findings which may have a bearing on proceedings that are sub judice before the Court below.

16. It has to be observed that the petitioner was initially appointed as fair price shop dealer in the year 1995 under widow category and the authorization was issued in her favour by mentioning her surname as

                  “Vanguri‟, being the wife of late Vanguri Rajkumar, which was continued till 2019. In the year 1995 itself, the petitioner got married to Kota Srinivasa Rao who passed away in the year 2019. Subsequent to the death of Kota Srinivasa Rao, the petitioner, colluded with the concerned authority and got changed her name as “Kota Radha Rukmini‟ in the place of “Vanguri Radha Rukmini‟. The said fact came to light when the authorization of the petitioner was being processed by the 4th respondent in the year 2021 and the same was rectified by changing the petitioner‟s name as “Vanguri Radha Rukmini‟ instead of “Kota Radha Rukmini‟, vide proceedings dated 06.08.2021.

                  Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities stating that she being the wife of late Kota Srinivasa Rao has displayed her name on the board of the subject fair price shop as “Kota Rahda Rukmini‟. When the petitioner allegedly married Kota Srinivasa Rao way back in the year 1995 and when the petitioner has applied for renewal of authorization of the subject fair price shop thereafter from time to time, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the concerned authorities for change of her surname as

                  “Kota‟ instead of “Vanguri‟ by filing necessary documents to that extent. Having enjoyed the authorization of the fair price shop under widow category under the surname “Vanguri‟, the petitioner kept quiet for decades and did not take steps for change of surname until the death of late Kota Srinivasa Rao. Even otherwise, generally, for change of name, a person has to submit a notarized affidavit to the concerned authority, thereafter shall publish the same in a newspaper and has to obtain a notification in the official Gazette. But, the petitioner has not chosen to follow such procedure. In view of the same, the proceedings dated 06.08.2021 need not be interfered with insofar as the surname of the petitioner as “Vanguri‟ is concerned.

17. Insofar as the shifting of the subject fair price shop to door No.1-85, Ramalayam veedhi, near Sai Baba temple, Ramavarappadu is concerned, it can be observed that the 6th respondent is claiming to be the owner of the said property and admittedly, the petitioner has instituted various suits before the Courts below for declaring her as the legally wedded wife of Kota Srinivasa Rao and for restraining respondent Nos.5 and 6 from interfering with the properties belonging to late Kota Srinivasa Rao. It appears that, pending the suit seeking permanent injunction, the petitioner is trying to claim a right over such property by running the subject fair price shop in the said premises, to establish before the Court below that she is in possession of the same. The petitioner, without proving her title over the said premises and without any order from the Court below with regard to the said property, cannot run the fair price shop in the said premises. However, at the present juncture, shifting of the subject fair price shop to some other premises from door No.1-85, Ramalayam veedhi, near Sai Baba temple, Ramavarappadu would cause much inconvenience and hardship to the cardholders. In view of the same, the respondent authorities are directed to maintain status quo, existing as on today with regard to functioning of the subject fair price shop at door No.1-85, Ramalayam veedhi, near Sai Baba temple, Ramavarappadu, till disposal of the civil suits filed by the petitioner before the Courts below duly considering her surname as “Vanguri‟.

18. With regard to the endorsement of the 4th respondent dated 09.10.2025, challenged in W.P.No.31655 of 2025, pursuant to the letter addressed by the 6th respondent on 21.08.2021, the same need not be interfered with, as the subject matter is sub judice before the Courts below.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, both these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

                      Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.