Dismissed

Smt Bommisetti Bhavani v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jun 2023WP/9745/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the Government's second notification changing eligibility criteria for a fair price shop from General to SC category, the High Court held that an administrative notification does not create a vested interest. The court agreed with the government's contention that the fresh notification nullified the earlier one, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed without costs. No order as to costs.

Smt Bommisetti Bhavani Vs State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY. THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE /o FRIDAY. THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

¶5

T\NO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PI^A^

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 9745 OF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

¶11

Varahala Babu Aged about 26 years Occ (M) Vfetepa^m dSS®”’'®"’ Panchayat. 'J- Madugula

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

C Pradesh, rep. by its Ex-Official Secretary to Govt

¶15

VdaZudlTurtur^Stetria

¶16

The District Collector. Visakhapatnam.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer. Anakapalli. Visakhapatnam District

¶18

The Tahasildar.V.Madugula<M) Visakhapatnam District.

¶19

Moleti Mrutyumani. y>J/o. fi^pparao, Aged about 34 years Vantarala Panchayat. Madugula Mandal. Visakhapatnam District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

tho Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed prayinq that in affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declarinn^thA dU-S 20"sT resoeS”®? ?■ ‘'’® '’°-3 ’'W® P™®- Rc.no.OIOMIWE V Maduaultui P"“ ®'’®P 0309018 of Vantarlapaleni(v) of selection process as per earlier notification dt.6-10-2016.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶23

*Pa'J,®o!ia’JS'Z=d':,^^.'i'^H^ P®'®™. KJ Puram Kancnayat. v Madugula Mandal. Visakhapatnam District

¶24

...Implead Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.5

¶25

AND

¶26

§!i5S5£?R to" vZdTaleV^'?'? ?®'’“ ®bout 26 years, Occ: (M) Visakhapatnam District. Panchayat, /. Madugula

¶27

Velagapudi, Guntur District. (CS-1) Department Secretariat.

¶28

The District Collector. Visakhapatnam

¶29

5 ^He tZs M "**• ''isakhapatnam District.

¶30

The Tahasildar. /. Madugula (M) Visakhapatnam District.

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

stated in the affidavit fifed In supoort of circumstances pleased to permit the Sner iEead "J’S '>® 9745 of 2018 as propound ne^X^ Xr 5 in this WP

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶34

stated in the affidavit fifed fn support of thPaying that in the circumstances pleased to stay all^further^roceedinosTn^^r'"'® '^'9'’ "’®7 be by the respondent no.3 vide proc Rc no 613/20 W/E dt notification issued

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M M M SRINIVASA RAO

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI. S SRINIVASA RAO

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 9745 of 2018

¶41

ORAL ORDER;

¶42

Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner, Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the implead Respondent No.5 and ! Sri G.Raju, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the Official Respondents.

¶43

2. Sri M.M. M. Srinivasa Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Government has issued the first Notification on 06.10.2016 for appointment of dealer for fair price shop. The Writ Petitioner is an Applicant for fair price shop No.0309018 of. Vanarlapalem Village of V.Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District under O.C. General Category. Subsequently, the Government has issued a fresh Notification on 01.03.2018, wherein for the same fair price shop bearing No.0309018, the eligibility has been changed from OC to that of SC.

¶44

¶45

Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner further submits that the change made by the Government in the subsequent Notification has adversely affected his vested interest for being considered for the fair price shop. He also submits that the Government, while issuing the second Notification dated 01.03.2018, did not issue any Proceedings for cancellation of the first Notification dated 06.10.2016. Therefore, he would submit that the second Notification dated 01.03.2018 is vitiated for the reason of non-cancellation of the earlier Notification dated 06.10.2016.

¶46

Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the implead Respondent No.5 submits that the implead Respondent No.5 has also submitted his Application in in respect of fair price shop bearing No.0309018 of Vanarlapalem Village of V.Madugula Mandal of Visakhapatnam District in pursuance of the second Notification dated 01.03.2018. He further submits that the implead Respondent No.5 is the Applicant in pursuance of the second Notification dated 01.03.2018 under SC

¶47

¶48

Category and that his consideration has been kept in abeyance in view of the Interim Order passed by this Court on 23.03.2018. 5. Sri G.Raju, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that the Official Respondents have filed Counter-Affidavit dated 04.07.2018. The Government has contended in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the Counter-Affidavit as under:

¶49

“2. Before ~ " giving parawise replies it is submitted---- that— J as a periodical task fulfilment in the year 2016 the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli issued a Notification in Rc.No. 1067/2016/E/Dated 06.10.2016for calling fresh application for filing up of Dealers to the 20 FP Sheps with dear vacancies arised due to Death/Resignation/ cancellation of Authorisation in respect ofAnakapalli Revenue Divisions. Later, there were some Writ Petitions write details ofwrit numbers of orders filed against said notification by the some of the aspirants of some of the FP Shops notified in the said Notifications and they are still pending on the said Notification. During course of correspondence with the District Administration, the said Notification kept pending, at receipt of Application stage without Jurther proceedings for seeking clarification of allotment of Reservation category to the FP Shops notified in the said notification.

¶50

3. It is further submitted that while the matter stood thus, the District ' Collector {CS), Visakhapatnam has issued instructions in Rc.No.547/2017/CSR7/Dt.09-01-2018 that the Commissioner of civil supplies, A.P., Vijayawada issued instructions to the Appointing Authorities i.e.. Revenue Divisional Officers/District Supply

¶51

I i
V

¶52

¶53

Officer to get hundred point roster prepared similar to Rule 22(2j(E)(e) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 taking Division/Circle as a unit considering rule of reservations indicated on G.O.Ms.No.4, CA FSsCS Department Dated 19-2-2011. This Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.59/2015 and batch made rprtniri observation regarding preparation of permanent Roster register. This respondent prepared 100 Point Roaster register considering Revenue division as unit following on the same notifications issued duly mentioning that earlier applications received will not be considered. ”

¶54

Ld. Assistant Government Pleader further submits that in the second Notification dated 01.03.2018, it has been clearly stated that the 'earlier applications received through Mee-Seva regarding fair price shops notified in the earlier Notification will not be considered'.

¶55

Issuance of a Notification would not create any vested interest in any one. This apart, the Government, for any administrative exigency, has the right to issue fresh Notification with change of criteria. By the issuance of the fresh Notification, the earlier Notification would be deemed to have been annulled. This apart, it is submitted that the Government was constrained to issue second Notification dated 01.03.2018 for the implementation of the new roaster. This Court is completely in agreement with the

I J

I I

submissions of the Sri G.Raju, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the Official

¶60

Respondents.

¶61

In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is

¶62

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶63

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Order.

¶64

****

¶65

//TRUE COPY//

¶66

SD/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT\ REGISTRAR SEC N OFFICER

¶67

To.

¶68

One CC to SRI. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

One CC to SRI. S SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES. High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶71

Two Cd Copies

¶72

Csb "r

, i ' J

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/06/2023

ORDER

WP.No.9745 of 2018

¶78

fe G 6 SEP 2323 mi
’V* Section

¶79

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Smt Bommisetti Bhavani v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bommisetti Bhavani v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Venkatesh Vs S Suresh Kumar

M.Seshanna, Vs Prl.Secy., Food and Consumer Affairs Dept.,Hyd., and 2 Others

B.Veeresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Duggempudi Yogeswara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri.M.Subba Reddy Vs the State of Ap.,Food and Consumer Affairs and 4 Others

Chimata Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh