Dismissed

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2024WA/603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismisses two writ appeals regarding the appointment of a fair price shop dealer. The High Court held that guidelines reserving the shop for scheduled tribes prevail over preference for DWCRA groups, rejecting the appealant claim of illegal deprivation.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶4

AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

yV, A NO: 603 OF 2022 AND W.A.416 OF 2023

¶6

W.A.No.603 of 2022:

¶7

WP order vvt^ NO. 41997 of 2017, dated 31-01-2022 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group, Azith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada Krishna Circle 1 AS Nan« Smt.S.Chandrakala FP Shop Dealer of^ShopNo.126, Circle-1 AS Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶10

...APPELLANT AND

¶11

Secretary Consumer

¶12

Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS,I) Department,) Secretariat Building, At Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. at

¶13

MachilipJnam°"^^*°'^’ Office

¶14

¶15

^ MachilipJnam°"^^*°'^’ Office 3. The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada , Krishna. District. 5 "! ®T''' °'lPf’■ ''wawada, Krishna District. 5. Karedula Pratap Kumar, S/o Rama Mohan aged 37 years R/o 42-3/1-63 , Vijayawada,

¶16

Krlt^aS"'' Rantakrish^napuram

¶17

^ ^ ^ , ...RESPONDENTS (Respondent No.5 impleaded as per Court Order dt. 20.02.2024 vide I.A.No.3 of 2022 in W.A.No.603 of 2022)

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF ?n99

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased rd to suspend the notification issued by the 3 respondent by Rc.A7/182/2017 Dt. 01.12.2017.

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K SRINIVAS

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI.MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶23

W.A. NO: 416 OF 202a-

¶24

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters dated 04.01.2023 in WP No. 201 of 2023. ^ against the order on the file of the High Court.

¶25

Between:

¶26

, Krishna FP Shop Dealer of Shop . Krishna District

¶27

-Appellant

¶28

Office at

¶29

4 Th^ Sub-Collector. Vijayawada. NTR District 5 Th Supply Officer. Vijayawada. NTR District 6.' KafeduKatatiTSm^^&o S M ^TR District. 63, koduru Raju ^reet Ne^ «-3«Vijayawada, NTR ofstrict R^'^^KP^Pnapuram,

¶30

jA NO: 2 OF 2097

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

in the affidavit ffleTki^L^pport of ffil writ^ Son 'the H ‘I;® P‘''P"'"s'3"Pes stated i 28Tr2022" ''® ^®®P°nderit in R^a^o S76/2oLl“a1e'd°

¶33

jA NO: 3 OF ?n97

¶34

Stated in the affidavit filedln'suppirt"onhe'^^Jh Ston 'the H' '[l® ®'''®P'"®'P''Pes may be pleased .0 suspend the order passed in W.P.No 2oT“'r02?:aSfon 0«1,2023.

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K. SRINIVAS

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: SRI. B. PARAMESWARA RAO

¶38

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶39

¶40

HG & RRR,J W.A.No.603 of 2022 and W.A.No.416 of 2023

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Dt: 20.02.2024

¶43

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶44

Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 5.

¶45

As both these appeals are on the same issue of grant^offair price shop dealership and are between the same parities, they are being disposed of by way this common order.

¶46

The appellant in both these appeals is a women self help group. The appellant is said to have been appointed as fair price shop dealer for shop No.87, which was later changed to Shop No 126, in Vijayawada, in 2001. Thereafter, the appellant was supplying the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. At which point of time, the 3^^ respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer had issued a notification dated 01.12.2017 ostensibly in^{accordancewith} G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 19.02.2011 calling for apphcations for appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer of shop No. 126 on permanent basis, and also stipulating that the shop was reserved^forscheduled tribe reserved category. Aggrieved by the said action, the appellant

¶47

¶48

HQ & RRR,J W.A.No.603 of 2022 and W.A.No.416 of 2023

¶49

moved W.P.No.41997 of 2017 before this Court, which^cametohe dismissed on 31.01.2022. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellant moved W.A.No.603 of 2022.

¶50

It may also be noted that the dealership was not awarded on account of stay which had been granted in W.P.No.41997^of2017. After the said writ petition had been dismissed, the 3rd respondentSub-Collector, Vijayawada, had appointed the 6^^ respondent^inthe writ petition as Fair Price Shop Dealer by proceedings dated 28.11.2022. Aggrieved by the said order of appointment, the appellant moved W.P.No.201 of 2023, which came to be dismissed by way of an order dated 04.01.2023. Aggrieved by the^saidordersof dismissal, the appellant moved W.A.No.416 of 2023.

¶51

Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 19.02.2011 had revised the guidelines issued for selection and appointment^ofPair Price Shop Dealers, issued under G.O.Ms.No.52, dated^{18.12.2008.Sri} K. Srinivas would submit that guideline No.9(iii) stipulates that preference should be given to DWCRA groups and Thrift groups while appointing fair price shop dealers and the said preference^hadnot been given to the appellant, who is a DWCRA group.^{Hesubmitsthat} on account of this refusal to give preference to the appellant, the

¶52

¶53

HQ & RRR,J W.A.No.603 of 2022 and W.A.No.416 of 2023

¶54

respondent authorities had acted in violation of the^{saidguidelines} and the grant of fair price shop dealership to the 6**^^ respondent in W.P.No.201 of 2023 is illegal and which needs to be^setaside.

¶55

The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would contend that Guideline No.7 empowers and enables the^Government to reserve certain fair price shops for the depressed^{classesofsociety} and the fair price shop in question had been reserved^forscheduled tribes, due to which the shop had been allotted to^{the6*^^respondent.}

¶56

The learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.No.41997 of 2017 had held that the initial allotment of the shop to the petitioner was on temporary basis, as the existing dealer had^{passedawayand} as such the petitioner did not have any right or claim^overthesaid dealership. The learned Single Judge also took the^viewthatthe guidelines require reservations to be provided for^{depressedclassesof} society and the reservation of shop No. 126 for scheduled^tribesisin accordance with the said guidelines.

¶57

W.P.No.201 of 2023 was dismissed on the ground that^the appellant was only a temporary dealer and could not^{claimanyright} to challenge the appointment of the respondent in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also took into account^thefactthat

¶58

5 HO & RRR,J W.A.No.603 of 2022 and W.A.No.416 of 2023

¶59

the earlier writ petition, mentioned above had already been dismissed. 9. A perusal of the guidelines, which are the basis for the contentions of the appeUant, would show that guideline No.7 provides for reservation being given for depressed classes of society and guideline No.9 provides for preference and priorities to be given. This would mean that a preference, under guideline No.9, can be given only where all things are equal. The said guideline would not be apphcable where the shop is already reserved for the members of the depressed classes of society and a non-depressed class member cannot seek appointment of shops which are reserved for depressed^class.

¶60

Learned counsel for the appeUant had also raised an additional issue that the 6*^ respondent in W.P.No.201 of 2023 was not a resident of the area and as such could not have been considered for the shop. The Aadhar Card of the 6*^ respondent has been placed before this Court. This Aadhar Card shows that the 6*''^ respondent is a resident of the area in which fair price shop is located.

¶61

In these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Single Judges in both the writ appeals. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

¶63

HO & RRR,J W.A.No.603 of 2022 and W.A.No.416 of 2023

¶64

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall

¶65

stand closed.

¶66

Sd/- M.SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTK5N OFFICER

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

SECTK5N To, 1. One CC to Sri K.Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Kunchem Maheswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri B. Parameswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Supplies. High Court of Andhra Pradesh 5. ihree C.D.Copies [OUT] nm

¶69

high court

¶70

DATED:20/02/2024

¶71

COMMON ORDER
WA.Nos.603 of 2022 & 416 of 2023
tT
I 0 5 mar 2(»it I
^)3>|W Current Section

¶72

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL’S WITHOUT COSTS s

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

J. Rama Rao, Vs Smt. T. Lakshmi at Theresamma

Ctp Granites and Exports Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ctp Granite and Exports, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

N Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Datta Sesha Sai Praveen Vs K. Ramachandracharyulu