Disposed

M Urmila v. Parnagonta Parvathamma

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WA/861/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

2. A writ appeal was filed challenging an interlocutory order which suspended the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer. 3. An interim order suspending the suspension and restoring the authorisation was passed. 4. The present appeal challenged the said interim order. 5. Since the appeal was against an interlocutory order and a counter was already filed in the main writ petition, the High Court refrained from interfering with the appeal. 6. The Court directed the appellant to file a counter in the writ petition. 7. The interim order was held to operate only for two weeks or until the listing of the main writ petition, whichever is earlier, with no automatic continuation.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal disposed of without interference.

M Urmila Vs Parnagonta Parvathamma — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010352222026

¶2

Bench Sr.No:-24 [3584]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO: 861 of 2026

M Urmila

...Appellant

Vs.

Parnagonta Parvathamma and Others ...Respondent(s)

¶9

¶10

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶11

SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶12

DATE : 15^th September 2026

¶13

Present:

¶14

Advocate for Appellant: AYESHA AZMA S

¶15

Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY, GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶16

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

¶17

Present writ appeal is filed challenging interlocutory order dated 24.06.2026 in W.P. No.15716 of 2026 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the impugned proceedings in writ petition suspending the authorisation of fair price shop standing in the name of 1^st respondent herein was suspended.

¶18

HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.861 of 2026

¶19

¶20

2. 1^st respondent was appointed as fair price shop dealer. Her authorisation was suspended by impugned proceedings dated 02.06.2026. Assailing the same, the writ petition was preferred.

¶21

3. Before suspension, show-cause notice dated 16.05.2026 was issued pointing out certain irregularities and charge was also framed, to which, appropriate explanation was submitted on 22.5.2026. Thereafter, this order of suspension came to be passed.

¶22

4. Before the learned Single Judge, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents, while supporting the impugned suspension order, also pointed out that since temporary dealer was appointed on 04.06.2026, she was required to be made as a party respondent in the writ petition.

¶23

5. Nonetheless, learned Single Judge, having prima facie found that the suspension order was in violation of circular instructions dated 05.12.2025, suspended the same and further directed restoration of authorisation in favour of 1^st respondent. Assailing the said interim order, writ appellant herein, temporary dealer who stepped into shoes of 1^st respondent, preferred present appeal.

¶24

6. Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice in the appeal, suspended the operation of impugned order of learned Single Judge and directed the matter to be listed on 15.9.2026.

¶25

HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.861 of 2026

¶26

¶27

7. Sri Ayesha Azma S, learned counsel for appellant, submits that after passing of interim order in the present appeal on 17.07.2026, writ appellant also got impleaded as respondent in writ petition, which was allowed on 22.07.2026. She further submitted that the 1^st respondent, being very much aware of the appellant's appointment as temporary dealer, deliberately chose not to array her as party-respondent in writ petition, therefore, Coordinate Bench of this Court has rightly suspended the impugned order.

¶28

8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents submits that they have already filed counter to the main writ petition, therefore, the appellant can as well agitate the issue in main writ petition itself.

¶29

9. Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, also submits that, on one hand, the appellant has been pursuing the present appeal, however, on other hand, when the writ petition was listed on couple of occasions, time was sought for filing counter. In view of the interim order granted in the appeal, the appellant is conveniently delaying the hearing in the writ petition by not filing counter. He further contended that appellant, since was appointed on temporary basis pending suspension of regular dealer, has no vested right to continue, thus, pleaded for dismissal of writ appeal.

¶30

HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.861 of 2026

¶31

¶32

10. Having considered aforesaid submissions, as the present appeal is merely directed against interlocutory order, we refrain from interfering with the same. Since it is stated that the Government has already filed counter, we direct the appellant as well to file counter in the writ petition before it gets listed for hearing. We also make it clear that the interim order dated 17.07.2026 passed in the present appeal shall remain in operation for a period of two weeks or until the listing of the writ petition, whichever is earlier, and it is also made clear that there is no automatic continuation of the interim arrangement. It is left to learned Single Judge to pass appropriate further orders after hearing all the parties.

¶33

11. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. No costs.

¶34

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration,

¶35

if any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶36

LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶37

M Urmila v. Parnagonta Parvathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Urmila v. Parnagonta Parvathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases