Dismissed

Peddapogula Sukanya v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WA/591/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for three months from 28.05.2025, was replaced by the 5th respondent via an order dated 26.06.2025 before her term expired. The Single Judge upheld the replacement, finding no prohibition in the Control Order. The Division Bench declined to interfere, noting the appellant had no vested right to continue beyond her appointment, and directed respondents 2-4 to complete roster refixation and make a permanent appointment within six months.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed; respondents 2 to 4 are directed to complete the exercise of refixing roster points and making permanent appointment to the subject fair price shop within six months from receipt of the judgment.

Peddapogula Sukanya Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010204442026 Bench Sr.No:-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3584] AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO: 591 of 2026

Peddapogula Sukanya

...Appellant

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶7

...Respondent(s)

¶8

¶9

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶10

DATE : 15th September 2026

¶11

Present:

¶12

Advocate for Appellant: MR. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Advocate for Respondents 1 - 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)

¶15

Unsuccessful writ petitioner preferred present intra-Court appeal, assailing the order, dated 17.03.2026, in W.P.No.16809 of 2025, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

¶16

2. The appellant preferred writ petition questioning proceedings in Ref.No.D1/769/2025, dated 26.06.2025, issued by 3^rd respondent, whereby 5^th respondent was appointed as temporary dealer of subject fair price shop, replacing writ petitioner, to be illegal, arbitrary, non est in law, and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State

¶17

¶18

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.591 of 2026

¶19

Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, “the Control Order”).

¶20

3. Appellant claimed that she was appointed as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis, vide order, dated 30.05.2025, which was for a period of three months, i.e., from 28.05.2025 till 28.08.2025. By impugned proceedings, 3^rd respondent appointed the 5^th respondent in place of petitioner, yet again as temporary dealer for a period of three months from 26.6.2025 to 26.9.2025, even before completion of one month of such initial appointment. The claim of appellant was that even without issuing any notice or either cancelling or terminating the authorisation standing in her favour, issuance of impugned proceedings tantamount to violation of the Control Order, besides being in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶21

4. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition by holding that the provisions of the Control Order do not place any prohibition on replacing temporary dealer with another temporary dealer, and further, the replacement of writ petitioner was necessitated only after completion of the term of appointment, therefore, it does not necessitate issuing any notice.

¶22

¶23

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.591 of 2026

¶24

5. Heard Mr.Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, learned counsel for appellant and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for official respondents 1 to 4.

¶25

6. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that there is no rationality in replacing appellant with another temporary dealer, which apparently was done only to accommodate the 5^th respondent, hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is also contended that replacement of temporary dealer by another temporary dealer should be for valid and justifiable reasons, which are lacking in the present case, therefore, learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition upholding the appointment in favour of 5^th respondent.

¶26

7. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for official respondents, while supporting the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, contended that it was only on account of the recommendation made by Tahsildar, the 5^th respondent was considered for appointment as temporary dealer, and that appellant/writ petitioner does not have any vested right to continue as temporary dealer for the period beyond the appointment. It is also submitted that in view of the common order, dated 17.11.2025, passed in W.P. No.31505 of 2024 and batch, the official respondents had to undertake the exercise of fixing the roster points for the purpose of issuing notification for permanent appointment of fair price shop dealers, which is under process. Further,

¶27

¶28

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.591 of 2026

¶29

since on account of bifurcation of Rayachoti Revenue Division and formation of new Revenue Division with headquarters at Pileru, the roster points for fair price shops are being refixed treating the Revenue Division as a unit, which exercise is under process and in all probabilities within six months from now the respondents would complete the process of both refixing the rosters as well as appointment of dealers on permanent basis in terms of directions of this Court as mentioned above.

¶30

8. Though learned counsel for appellant strenuously contended that replacement of appellant by 5^th respondent, again on temporary basis, without providing any justification is an arbitrary exercise of powers vested on the appointing authority, however, could not point out any specific provision in the Control Order conferring right on appellant to continue as dealer beyond initial period of appointment.

¶31

9. On the other hand, learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of appellant/writ petitioner on the ground that there is no specific prohibition for replacement of temporary dealer by yet another. By virtue of dismissal of writ petition, the 5^th respondent has now been continuing to act as fair price shop dealer. The appointment clearly envisages that the tenure would be from 26.06.2025 to 26.09.2025 or till appointment of permanent fair price shop dealer as per the Control Order, whichever is later. Therefore, the 5^th respondent as of now continues to act as the

¶32

¶33

HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.591 of 2026

¶34

dealer. We do not propose to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶35

10. Be that as it may, in the counter-affidavit filed by official respondents, it has been specifically pleaded that delay in appointing dealer on permanent basis occurred only due to refixation of roster points in terms of the directions issued by this Court, which is likely to be completed soon and thereafter even the appointments on permanent basis would be made, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to continue the 5^th respondent as temporary dealer for the time being, subject to due compliances being made by said respondent to satisfaction of competent authority. However, we direct respondents 2 to 4 to complete the exercise of refixing the roster points and further making permanent appointment to the subject fair price shop within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

11. With the above observations, present writ appeal stands disposed

¶37

of. No order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶40