(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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent issuing impugned proceedings Rc.CS2/99/2025, dated 04.09.2025 by remanding back to 4th respondent cancellation of dealership of the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Fair Price Shop No. 0811021, Pedarikatia Village, K.K. Mitia Mandal, Prakasam District, without deciding the case there being any valid reason to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, violation of orders of the Honourable High Court in WA 139 of 2025 dt. 18.03.2025 and consequently direct the 3rd respondents to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 0811021, Pedarikatia Village, K.K. Mitia Mandal, Prakasam District by set-aside the impugned proceedings of 3rd respondent issuing impugned proceedings Rc.CS2/99/2025, dated 04.09.2025

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 direct the 3rd respondents to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 0811021, Pedarikatia Village, K.K. Mitia Mandal, Prakasam District by set- aside the impugned proceedings of 3rd respondent issuing impugned proceedings Rc.CS2/99/2025, dated 04.09.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition)

1. This Writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings issued by respondent no.3 vide Rc.CS2/99/2025, dated 04.09.2025, whereby respondent no.3-Joint Collector, remitted back the matter to respondent no-4- Revenue Divisional Officer.

2. Heard Sri N.Sashinag, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

3. Sri N.Sashinag, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that, as against the orders passed by respondent no.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 26.05.2025, cancelling the F.P.shop authorization of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ongole and the Joint Collector, vide impugned orders, remitted back the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, without specifying any reasons. He would further contend that the impugned order does not contain any sufficient cause or reason for remanding the matter and therefore the same is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned orders and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. He would further contend that if at all the petitioner feels aggrieved by the impugned orders, he ought to have filed revision before the District Collector, however, the petitioner instead of preferring revision filed this writ petition and hence this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The material discloses that as against the orders passed by respondent no.4- Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Rc.E/289/2025, dated 26.05.2025, whereby the petitioner’s F.P.Shop authorization was cancelled, the petitioner preferred appeal before respondent no.3-Joint Collector, Ongole. Through the impugned orders, the Joint Collector remitted back the matter to Revenue Divisional Officer.

7. For sake of convenience, the operative portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:

                  “Perused the entire records placed before me in this case.

                  As seen from the cancellation of authorization orders passed by the Revenue divisional Officer, Kanigiri, vide Rc.E/289/2025, dt: 26.05.2025 under pending enquiry. Further, remand the case to the Revenue Divisonal Officer, Kanigiri.

                  As such one more action of finalization of the case is pending at RDO’s level wherein RDO, Kanigiri is at liberty to pass final order after giving due opportunity to the delinquent dealer.

                  Hence, it is considered apt to remand the case to the Revenue Divisional officer, Kanigiri and therefore, it is hereby directed to dispose the case duly following the procedure to be followed in dealing with the disciplinary cases pertaining to the F.P.shop dealer following the principles of natural justice.

                  Accordingly, the appeal case disposed of.”

8. The impugned order is enigmatic, cryptic and elusive. No reasons muchless satisfactory reasons have been given for ordering remand of the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also curious enough to note that the orders assailed in the appeal is not even set aside before ordering remand and further there is no clarify as to what enquiry is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer is not specified and what more action of finalization of the case that is pending at RDO’s level is also not clearly stated.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order of remitting back the matter to Revenue Divisional Officer is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the learned Joint Collector, Praksam District, Ongole, vide Rc.CS2/99/2025 and the matter is remitted back to the Joint Collector for passing orders afresh. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.