High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction , more particularly one in the nature of of the 2nd resPondent vide his Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action cancelling the dealershiP of the 04.2019 Proceedings No.'1l324l2019 dated petitioner G.O.Ms.No.4, CA' F and CS(CS'l) Department dated 19'02'2011 in so far as it relates to relinquishment of Fair Price Shop of a Dealer who got elected as Sarpanch which was replaced by declaring that the G'O'Ms'No' 20 dated 06.09.2018 of Civil Supplies Department relating to relinquishment of Fair Price ShopofaDealerwhoiselectedasSarpanch,iscontrarytothejudgmentofthe HonourableSupremeCourtinSomanathRathVsBikramK'ishighlyunjust' violativeofArticles14,lg,2land25oftheConstitutionoflndia'illegaland unsustainable and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to restore the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner' (Prayer amended as per Court Order dt: 3OtO1t2O25 in lA'No'1/2025) (Prayer amended as per Court Order dt: 1310212025 in lA'No'2/2025) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petitior uncl rr section 151 cpc praying that in the circrmslances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 2nrj res condent to permit the petitioner to run his Fair price shop bearing No.41060i 2 of Doma Village, Vikarabad District and furr:her directing the 2nd respondent nr: to issue Notification ca ing for applicatior fcrr appointment of Regular Deal:r in respect of the Fair Price Shop or the petilioner, pending disposal of ther abo re Writ Petition. Counsel for the Pr::itioner: SRI C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Re spondents: Gp FOR CIVIL SUppLIES The Court made th,: following: ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITIO NNO.69010F 2024 ORDER ThisWritPetitionisfiledseekingaWritofMandamusdeclaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No'1132412019 .o4.2olg cancelling the deatership of the petitioner as per dt. G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs' Food and Civit Supplies (CS'l) Department, dt'lg '02'2011 in so far as it relates to relinquishment of Fair Price Shop of a dealer who got elected as Sarpanch and for a declaration that the G'O'Ms'No'20' Consumer Affairs' Food and Civil Suppties (CS.I-CCS) Department' dt'06'09'20 1 8 replacing G'O'Ms'No'4 dt.19.02.20il, as conrrary to the judgment of the Hon'bre Supreme Court in the case of Somnath Rath Vs' Bikram K' Arukh and othersl and is thus illegal and unsustainable and consequently to direct the 2nd respondeht to restore the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders' I ' (tgsg) g scc sls 2 \4 P.No.690 t of2024

2. llriei ,b,:ts leading to the filing of the present S.rit petition are that tht: petitioner was appointed as a Fair price Sh,c, [reul.. or ro_u Village of \/ikarabad Mandal in respect of Shop 1rro.4106032. In January, 2Lr 9, 1fis petitioner was elected to the post c,f Salpanch of Doma \/i'at e fbr a period of 5 years. It is submitted rhat , viren the Gram Panchal,at el :ctions were declared and the petitioner enqr ri:ed about his eligibilir.y t( oontest, the 2nd respondent and c,t,er Government authorities tr:id him thar a5 pg1 the judgment of the Florr,rle Supreme court' h': is e rtitled to contest the election to the post ol.sarpanch whire continuirrg ar [:air price Shop Dealer. Accordingly, rho petitioner participa''ed ir the erections and won the erecrion and became the Sarpanch of the Gram panchayat. Thereafter, the 2nd reripondent has issued a notict dr.25.02.2019 to the petitioner to shou, (:auso as to why his Fair [,ricr: Shop Dealership should not be cancelled fr.r the reason that he hzrs no given any undertaking for relinquishing his Fair price Shop Dealersh p after getting elected as Sarpanch, as; recluired under 1G.O.Ms.No.4 ,1r.,19.02.2011 and thereafte r, vide order dt. .,,)4.2019, the 2nd respondent ca.rcelred his dealership by invoking ttre p-ovisions of Clause i 7((') cf the Telangana Srate public Distributio.r System (Contror) ()rcrer r()16' It is submitted that after compretiorr of his tenure,/ 3 W.P.No.690 t ot2024 as Sarpanch on 02.02.2024, the Petrtroner made a rePresentation He also submitted a dt.08.08.2024 to restore his dealership' representation dt.08'08'2021 to the Tahsildar informing him that he is entitled to get back his deatership after completion of his term as Sarpanch. It is submitted that since the petitioner's representation was not considered and his dealership has not been restored' he has filed the present writ petition chaflenging the impugned cancellation order dt' .04.2019. Learned counsel tbr the petitioner, whire vehemently reiterating 3. the contentions raised in the Writ Petition' has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Cheekati Parasuram Naidu Vs' Mariserla Venkatarami Naidu and another2 in support of his contention that being a Fair Price Shop deatership is not a disqualification fbr contesting the elections' Further' he also submitted that the post of Sarpanch is not an office of profit and therefore, it cannot be considered as an impediment for his continuation as a Fair Price ShoP Dealer' I AIR 1985 AP 169 4 ',U-P.No.6901of2024 4' ^e fhe rt amed counsel for the petitioner arso subnlirtod that in the show-c.use rotice given to the petitioner, the o,ly al leg al:ion was that the petitionr:,r has failed to give an undertaking that he rvc,uld relinquish his Fair Pricr Shop Dealership if he is elected to the posr. :f Sarpanch, but in the firti 'l order of cancellation, it was stated that ,vas elected to the post of S arpanch and therefore, he is not eiigiblt. t() continue as Dealer o I the, Fair Shop and since the allegation and tl e tirrding are at variance with :ach other, the finding is liabie to be set aside,. 5. Learned Govemment pleader for Civil Supplie:;,. rrr the other hand, reli:d r-r1 on the averments made in the counter eLf.lid *.it and also relied on Gui<elines 12(i) and l2(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.1 dtl9.0\.201t; Guideliner; 14 l and 14.2 of G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09 2013 and the provisions of rr lause r 7(c) of the Terangana state pur)ric Distribution System (Crxtro ) Order, 2016 insupport of his contention;. 6 Having re sard to the rival contentions and the maleriar r)r1 record, this Court finrl; lhar Clause l7(C) of the Telangana Slare public Distributiorr Svslenr (Control) Order, 2016 govems rhe ,uketf con,re,r i(r tc(. and ready reference, Clause 17(O) ol.the T elangana rssr le. For the 5 W.P.No 690 l of 2024 Distribution System (Control) Order' 2016 is reproduced State Public hereunder: " Taking Part in Polilical Activities: No fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawk'er shall takB part in any political activity or indirectly in any general/ Municipal/ Panchayat Raj eleclions' hampering the Public Distribution system and the aulhorization granted to him/her under the order shall be cancelled if he/she is found involved in such political activity canvasstng. Thus, any person who is appointed/nominated as fair price shop dealer shall not take part in political activities and his/her authorization is liable to be cancelled if he/she is found involved in such Political activitY' Further, this Court finds that G'O'Ms'No'20' Consumer Affairs' 7. Food and civir Supplies (cS.I-ccs) Department' dt'06'09'2018 contains the Guidelines for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers' Guideline No'14'1 thereof prescribes that alt individuals holding any like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat' President of Mandal Public Office Parishad, Members of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPrc), Chairman of Zllla Parishad, Presidents of Co-operatrve Societies, Councilors or Chairman of Municipality / Members of Z\lla ' 6 rr'. P.No-6901 of2024 Parisha,l 'ferritorial Constituency (Z,TC) etc., or holdinil any office of profit irresp'3 rtive of the reservation sha, not be erigiblt: firr appointment or contiluar'i )n as an authorized dealer ofa fair price shoo. It is noticed that the pet tioner has not challenged this particrrrrr (iuideline of G.O.Ms.No.j2l dt.06.09.201g, but has challenged rhe (i (r. as a whole. As seen frorrr thc authorization issued to the petitioner. tht: petitioner is required to zriride by the conditions thereunder and clarse 14 0f the authorization nentions that the horder of this arrthor.i.uat ic n shall not contravene tht provisions of the Terangana pubric. Di:;tr-iburion System (Control) Orci :r, 2016 or violate any conditions of he :*rthorization issued unrler tt e order or any other order relating kr fooCstr rfls, sugar or edible oilr; or :dible oilseeds or petroleum products is:;ue,d under the Essential Com nodities Act, 1955 or any instrut:tions. c irections or orders issrred rncler any such provisions. Under the Cc n irol Order Clause 17(Ct ar extracted above, the dealer shall nol participate in any political aotivil.,.. As per the Guidelines XfI (i) and (ii) is;sued under G.O.Ms.Nc,.32 < t.03.12.2018, all individuals holding any pu blic Office like Sarpanch c,t Gram panchayat, president of Mandal praj n parishad, chairman a1- Zl a Praja Parishad, presidents of co-rperativt, Societies, Councillors or. ( harman of Municipality / Members ol ?,.lllaparishad ( ( 7 W.P-No.6901 of2024 Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) etc', or holding any office of profit irrespective of the reservation shall not be eligible and it is for this reason that every fair price shop dealer shall give an undertaking to the appointing authority concemed that he / she shalt relinquish the fair price shop dealership if he / she is elected to any public office' Under G.O.Ms.No.2O dt.06.09.2018, similar Clause has been incorporated'

8. Having accepted the conditions for appointment as an authorized dealer, the petitioner cannot take contrary stand to suit his purpose' The petitioner also has not challenged the cancellation order immediately thereafter, but has chosen to challenge the order after completion of his term as a Sarpanch- G'O'Ms'No'4 dt'lg'02'2011 was replaced by G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09'2018' Therefore' the petitioner is govemed by the Guidelines issued at the time of his appointment and the petitioner' having accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment' cannot choose tg challenge the very same conditions after cancellation of his authorization. For the contention of the petitioner that the post of Sarpanch is not an office of prof,rt and therefore' is not covered by the said Guidelines, this Court finds that the relevant Clause refer to not only office of profit, but also refers to public office such as the post of ] t I , ) 8 V.'.t'.No.6901 of2024 Sarpanch ol'i Gram Panchayat and other public offices Tl-u:refore, there are two catr:;ories of positions which are disqualificati rrrs for being appointed or rlso for continuation as a fair price shop <1ealt.:r,

9. In vie,,, thereof, the judgments relied upon bv the lea:ned counsel for the petitic ner- in the case of Somnath Rath Vs, Bihram K. Arukh and others r' supra) and in the case of cheekati para:,uram Naidu Vs. Mariserll Venkatarami Naidu and another (2 s.rpra) are not applicable to -he facts of the case before this Couft as tl.rey related to eligibilit,r'of dre Fair price Shop Dealer to contest the eler:tior and not as to wheth,:r a rair price Shop Dealer can continue as : uc tr after being elected ar; a 5i rrpanch. Therefore, this court does not fi ncl a nv merit in this Writ Petiri:n

10. Th<: Wri . Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order r; to costs ll. Pendinpr miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this V/rit .r\:tition shall also stand disrr issed. //TRUE COPYII ,'/ SD/- K. AMMAJI AFS1SIANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I i To 1 2 3 PSK. CJP 9n" !9 to iRt C.RAN/ACHANnRA e_4_r1r. a4.,,.\..,)t r, \,)r r^l I wo ccs t- Gp FoR clvil I etan(tan_a. at Hyderabad. [OUT] I wo CD C() )res .supplrES, urbdb;;;,r"i ii._" ;,1," ", o HIGH COUFIT DATED:27lCt2l2025 ORDER WP.No.6901 of 2024 /::;;7":"?;t))' t.)

04.Ijt, 2025 -'\ r.l ,t ?'r.r r r.r ..j:: :. . __: j '-t A-./,/ sl/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C()STS ,-r ,{