K VENKATESWARA RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, vide Rc.No.A/123/2024, dated 26.07.2024. However, the respondent authorities are not precluded from taking steps, if so advised, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel…
Judgment
Cause title
5. SRI SAI MAHILA GROUP, REP.BY ITS LEADER SMT.GADELA PUSHPALATHA W/O VEERABABU HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, DAMULURU VILLAGE, NANDIGAMA MANDAL, NTR DIST. PIN- 521170 ...RESPONDENT(S)
: 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 pleased to may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.A/123/2024 dt-26-7-2024 2 entrusting distribution work to the 5th respondent in respect of the FP Shop No.0604027, Damuluru Village, Nandigama Mandal, NTR Dist., without any order of suspension or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt-26-7-2024 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 Suspend the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.A/123/2024 dt:26-7-2024 in respect of the FP Shop No.0604027, Damuluru Village, Nandigama Mandal, NTR Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3
ORDER:
Impugning the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, vide Rc.No.A/123/2024, dated 26.07.2024, entrusting the distribution work to the 5th respondent in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.0604027, Damuluru Village, Nandigama Mandal, NTR District, without passing any order of suspension or cancellation, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, without there being any order of suspension or cancellation of petitioner’s authorization, the authorities straightaway appointed the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer on temporary basis by stopping the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, personal notice has been sent to the 5th respondent, wherein the notice was served; however, she did not choose to put up her appearance. Issuing order in such a manner is perse illegal and it is liable to be set aside.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the action of the respondent authority, submitted that, the petitioner had committed certain irregularities and misbehaved with the cardholders; as such, the authority had rightly issued the impugned orders. However, in the event, if this Court is inclined to interfere, liberty may be given to the authorities to take steps, if required, in accordance with law. 4
Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel.
A perusal of the orders impugned dated 26.07.2024 vide Rc.A/123/2024, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, would go to show that, basing on the recommendation made by the Tahsildar vide report Rc.A/123/2024, dated
24.07.2024 and as the petitioner misbehaved with cardholders and participated in political activities, the 5th respondent was appointed as in charge dealer to the subject shop on temporary basis in order to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders, pending further orders. This Hon’ble Court, by virtue of orders dated
06.08.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, granted interim orders as prayed for.
It was brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner is continuing as Fair Price Shop dealer. Admittedly, as can be seen from the impugned proceedings, without issuing show cause notice, passing orders in such manner is ex facie illegal, unsustainable and contrary to law. As such, the same is liable to be set aside.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, vide Rc.No.A/123/2024, dated 26.07.2024. However, the respondent authorities are not precluded from taking steps, if so advised, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Date: 28.01.2026. JLV _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 5 140 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17274/2024 Date: 28.01.2026 JLV
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 28 Jan 2026. The bench was RAVI CHEEMALAPATI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.