Uddanda Gopinadh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

UDDANDA GOPINADH, S/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 1146020, R/O D.NO.7/23, EGUVAJANGAMPALLI H/O RAYAVARAM VILLAGE, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS-1) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY.

¶15

THE SUB COLLECTOR / REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPET, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶17

SRI MUDE NAVEEN NAIK, S/O RAMULU NAIK, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, MACHIREDDIGARI PALLI VILLAGE, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

2

¶21

pleased tomay be pleased to issue Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in appointing the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146020, situated in Jangampalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of the conditions particularly Condition No.6 as prescribed in the Notification vide Ref.No.C2/1785/2024, dated 07-12-2024 of the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146020, situated in Jangampalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District by supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner shop and pass such

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146020, situated in Jangampalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annama3^a District by supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner Shop, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Honourable court and pass such

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.VUTUPALLI RAJANNA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶28

2.SARANU PHANI TEJA

¶29

3

¶30

ORDER:-

¶31

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

¶32

“….to issue Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in appointing the 5^th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146020, situated in Jangampalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of the conditions particularly Condition No.6 as prescribed in the Notification vide Ref.No.C2/1785/2024, dated 07-12-2024 of the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1146020, situated in Jangampalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District by supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner shop and pass such...”(IN VERBATIM)

¶33

The petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for shop No.1146020 situated in Jangampalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District (erstwhile YSR Kadapa District). Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any adverse remarks from either the cardholders or the concerned authorities. The petitioner’s authorization has been renewed from time to time.

¶34

While things stood thus, the 3^rd respondent issued Notification Ref.No.C2/1785/2024, dated 07.12.2024, for appointment of permanent fair price shop dealers which are held vacant due to cancellation of authorization/resignation or death. In the said notification, the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop, was declared as vacant, and was shown at Sl. No. 7, reserved for the Scheduled Caste (SC) community.

¶35

4

¶36

The case of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent called for applications from eligible candidates for the said fair price shop and, after duly conducting the written examination on 22.12.2024 and completing all the post examination formalities, issued the selection list selecting the 5^th respondent as the permanent fair price shop dealer for the subject shop, who is a resident of Machireddigaripalli Village but not from Rayavaram. Challenging the appointment of the 5^th respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶37

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

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, requested this Court to allow this Writ petition by setting aside the appointment of the 5^th respondent on the sole ground that he belongs to Machireddigaripalli village but not Rayavaram Village.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop for shop No.1146020 situated in Jangampalli H/o Rayavaram Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal; the authorization was extended for from time to time. Later, his authorization was not renewed because of which the said fair price shop fell vacant. As the fair price shop was notified vacant, impugned notification was issued on 07.12.2024 for filling up of the vacancy with permanent dealer and the applications have been called for from the eligible SC applicants through the 4^th respondent. Accordingly after receiving the applications, written examination has been

¶40

5

¶41

conducted on 22.12.2024 to the eligible candidates and thereafter the interviews were also conducted on 30.12.2024 to the candidates who were qualified in the written test. The list of selected candidates for appointment of fair price shop dealer has been published at the notice board of this office, vide ref.C-2/1778/2025, dated 04.01.2025. Subsequently, the 5^th respondent was also issued appointment orders vide this office ref.No.C-2/1785/2024, dated 16.01.2025.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the 5^th respondent has been appointed by the 3^rd respondent after verifying all the documents submitted by him i.e., educational qualification, residence, category and the financial status of the applicants in terms of G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department, dated 03.12.2018. It is further stated that as the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to claim to continue him as permanent fair price shop dealer and to challenge the notification and the appointment issued in favour of the 5^th respondent. It is further stated that the as the fair price shop of T.Sundupalli Mandal was in the jurisidiction of Kadapa Division & District, in the year 2022, after bifurcation of the Districts in Andhra Pradesh, T.Sundupalli and Veeraballi Mandal are included in Rajampet Division of Annamayya District. Further, 8 Mandals viz., Atlur, Badvel, B.Kodur, B.Mattam, Gopavaram, Kalasapadu, Porumamilla and SAKN have been included in newly created Badvel Division of Kadapa District. Further, 2 Mandals viz., Vonitimitta and Sidhout have been included in

¶43

6

¶44

the Kadapa Division and District. Hence, finally, Rajampet Division has been constituted with 9 Mandals i.e., Nandalur, Rajampet Pullampet, Chitvel Penagalur, Obulavari Palli, Railway Kodur, T.Sundupalli and Veeraballi. Hence, it is not possible to follow the old roster as per the reorganized division.

¶45

Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the 5^th respondent belongs to Machireddigaripalli, which also comes under T.Sundupalli Mandal. Hence, the appointment of the 5^th respondent is neither illegal nor arbitrary and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

¶46

Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for shop No.1146020. Thereafter, his authorization has been extended from time to time and thereafter, there was no further renewal of the dealership, and the

¶47

shop fell vacant. As such the respondents issued a notification vide C-2/1785/2024 dated 07.12.2024 calling for applications for filing up of the subject shop on permanent basis. In pursuance of the said notification after receiving the applications, the written examination was conducted on 22.12.2024 and thereafter the interviews were conducted on 30.12.2024 to the candidates who are qualified in the written examination. Subsequently, the 5^th respondent stood at Sl.No.26 in the selection list and was accordingly appointed as fair price shop dealer for the subject shop. It can also be observed that the petitioner being a temporary fair price shop dealer does not have any right to challenge the notification issued for appointment of a

¶48

7

¶49

permanent fair price shop dealer, without even submitting an application pursuant to the said notification for selection on permanent basis.

¶50

Earlier, when a similar notification was challenged by few affected parties in W.P.No.39554 of 2015, this Court observed as under in the order passed:

¶51

“As the petitioner being a temporary dealer, the notification issued as per the guidelines prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 19.02.2011, the petitioner cannot question the same.

¶52

In view of the said circumstances, liberty was given to the respondents that if the selection list is available, may be permitted to proceed for appointment on permanent basis pursuant to the notification dated 13.11.2015 and if the said list is not available, liberty is given to the respondents to issue fresh notification as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 19.02.2011 and complete the process of appointment of permanent fair price shop dealer. No costs.”

¶53

It is not the case of the petitioner that he has also applied in pursuance

¶54

of the notification and was not selected by the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit any application in pursuance of the impugned notification as such he does not get any right to challenge the appointment of the 5^th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the notification has been issued for Rayavaram village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, the 5^th respondent who belongs to Machireddigaripalli Village was appointed. Admittedly, Machireddigaripalli Village falls under T.Sundupalli Mandal, for which the subject notification was issued and as such, this Court finds no wrong on the part of the respondent authorities in appointing the 5^th respondent.

¶55

8

¶56