(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 order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide in Rc.No.759/2024 CS Dt 30.9.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Art.14 and 21 Of the Constitution of India and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 8 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice and consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide in Rc.no.759/2024 CS Dt 30.9.2024 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 may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondents vide in Rc.No.759/2024 CS Dt 30.9.2024 and pass)

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

                  “….to issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide in Rc.No.759/2024CS, Dt 30.9.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 8 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of Essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice and consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide in Rc.no.759/2024 CS Dt 30.9.2024..”

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that:-

                  a. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0218663, Seethannapeta, H/oKotabommali village and Mandal, Srikakulam District in the year 2005. The petitioner’s authorization has been renewed from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, he has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaints from any corner.

                  b. While things stood thus, in the month of September, 2013, the petitioner fell seriously ill and requested the respondent authorities to grant sufficient leave till his recovery. The respondent authorities granted leave to the petitioner by handing over the said shop to a Self Help Group on a temporary basis. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother, namely Smt.Anapana Suramma, started distributing essential commodities to the cardholders through her Self Help Group from 2013 onwards, being organizer of the said Self Help Group. The petitioner neither committed any irregularities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 nor violated the Control Orders of 2008 and 2018. Further, the petitioner’s authorization was neither suspended nor cancelled at any point of time for any alleged gross irregularities.

                  c. After recovering from his ill-health, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 27.11.2023 requesting them to continue him as a fair price shop dealer by restoring the shop in his favour. As the said representation was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.18666 of 2024. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 11.09.2024, directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 27.11.2024 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

                  d. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned proceedings vide Rc. No. 759/2024/CS dated 30.09.2024, rejecting the petitioner’s representation. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

4. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner. However, it is stated that the petitioner worked as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0218663 of Kotabommali Village and Mandal from 2005 to 2013, after which he went on medical leave. For the convenience of the consumers Smt Anapana Suramma W/o.Appalaramayya, organizer of Sri Kottammatalli Self Help Group of Seethannapeta H/o.Kotabommali Village, was appointed as fair price shop dealer, who is the mother of the petitioner. She submitted her resignation on 16.10.2023. Thereafter, Smt.Anapana Chinnammi W/o.Karrayya organizer of Sri Edukondalu Self Help Group of Seethannapeta H/o Kotabommali Village was appointed as a temporary Fair price shop dealer to the said shop by the competent authority. She also tendered her resignation on 27.06.2024 on medical grounds. Presently, one Smt.Kalli Hymavathi W/o.Krishna Reddy organizer of Sri Seetarama Self Help Group of Seethannapeta h/o.Kotabommali Village is functioning as the fair price shop dealer for shop No.0128663 of Kotabommali Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. On a perusal of the petitioner’s affidavit and counter affidavit, it can be evident that the petitioner went on leave due to ill-health in the year 2013, and thereafter his mother, who is a member of the Self Help Group, was appointed as a fair price shop dealer and continued till the year 2023. On 16.10.2023, petitioner’s mother submitted her resignation. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 27.11.2023 i.e., after the resignation of his mother. Though there is a delay on the part of petitioner in approaching the respondent authorities to restore the fair price shop in his favour after recovery from ill health, it can also be observed that the petitioner’s mother continued as a member of the self help group to the said fair price shop. As such, the petitioner might not have raised any objection during the said period. However, when the petitioner submitted a representation seeking restoration of the Fair Price Shop in his favour after recovery from illness, it was incumbent upon the respondents to conduct an enquiry. No such enquiry has been conducted by the respondents in the present case.

6. In that regard, this Court, in Chinnareddigari Sambasiva Reddy, S/o Ramaswamy vs. State of A.P. and others decided by the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (At Hyderabad) (2014 LawSuit(Hyd) 740), categorically held as follows:

                  “ 10. The Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 does not contain any specific provision for acceptance of resignations of the fair price shop dealers.

                  11. However, the Form of Authorization (form-II) contains Clause-17 which reads as under:

                  The holder of this authorization shall work for a minimum period of five years unless suspended or cancelled by competent authority. Resignations etc., seeking to leave the dealership shall not be accepted within this minimum period of five years.

                  16. Ordinarily, no fair price shop dealer would like to quit his assignment. If such extra-ordinary desire is expressed by any dealer, it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to put the dealer on notice before accepting the resignation as, foul play by vested interests cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I cannot appreciate the action of respondent No.3 I purporting to ratify the hasty and unauthorized action of respondent No.4 without even trying to get the confirmation from the petitioner as to whether he has sent his resignation out of his free will or the same is secured by any vested interests by force. the failure of respondent No.3 to make an enquiry in this regard by issuing notice to the petitioner vitiates the entire action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in easing out the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership.”

7. As stated in the above decision, the respondents shall conduct an enquiry, duly issuing notice to the petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders. However, the impugned proceedings does not assign proper reasons and also does not show that a proper enquiry was conducted after issuing notice as contemplated under the Control Order. In the absence of such due procedure as laid down in the aforesaid decision, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.759/2024/CS dated 30.09.2024, passed by the 3rd respondent. The matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, after duly considering the representation submitted by the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.