Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/12370/2026 of GANGAVARAM SAROJAMMA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 7 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12370/2026 Between: 1. GANGAVARAM SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RIO H.NO. 20/369 NEAR CHINNA MARKET, ADONI, KURNOOL
APHC010199572026
IN TH
FRID
TWO
THE HONOURA
W
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. GANGAVARAM S ABOUT 72 YEA NEAR CHINNA M
1. THE STATE OF A SUPPLIES DEPA
2. THE DISTRICT C
3. THE SUBCOLLEC
4. THE TAHSILDAR Petition under Art the circumstances state be pleased to Issue a respondent in removin and issuing endorsem APR 2026 as illegal, justice and mala fide Commodities Act, 195 HE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL WRIT PETITION NO: 12370/2026 SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVAS ARS, RIO H.NO. 20/369-A, VEN MARKET, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRI .. AND AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRE ARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAP COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. CTOR, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT R, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTR ...RESP rticle 226 of the Constitution of India ed in the affidavit filed therewith, the H Writ of Mandamus declaring the ac ng the petitioner from Fair Price Shop ment in R.C.B No. 204 of 2025 dated 2 , arbitrary, biased, violative of princi e, and contrary to the provisions of 55 and relevant Control Orders Con DESH
LAPATI SULU, AGED NKANNAPETA, ICT. ..PETITIONER ETARY, CIVIL PUDI. T. RICT. PONDENT(S): praying that in High Court may ction of the 4th p No. 1383008, 21.02.2026, 15 ples of natural f the Essential nsequently set aside the endorsement R.C.B No. 204 of 2025 dated 21.02.2026 and Direct the respondents to restore the dealership of Fair Price Shop No. 1383008to the petitioner and Pas IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to suspend the endorsement in R.C.B No. 204 of 2025 dated 21.02.2026, and Direct restoration of the Fair Price Shop to the petitioner Pending disposal of the writ petition, and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRIDEVI JAMPANI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following order:
Challenging the endorsement issued by Tahsildar vide R.C.B 204/2025 dated 21.02.2026, removing the petitioner from Fair Price shop No.1383008 situated at 1st Ward, Prashanthi Nagar, Adoni, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
2. Heard Smt Sridevi Jampani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, contended that the petitioner has been running the subject shop for nearly 40 years without any complaints. She further contended that the respondent authorities, without issuing any show cause notice or passing any order of cancellation, illegally removed the petitioner from the dealership and forcibly took away the stock from the subject shop. The petitioner approached respondent No.4 and requested restoration of the shop and return of the stock, but no action was taken. Thereafter, she submitted a representation under PGRS (Spandana) vide Application No.KUR202602025656 dated 02.02.2026, to which respondent No.4 issued impugned endorsement dated 21.02.2026 rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the ground that she was aged about 72 years and was not presently residing in Adoni. She further contended that the respondent authorities, without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing, removed the petitioner from the dealership, which is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.
4. Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, fairly conceded that there was neither suspension nor cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop and the authorities would take steps in accordance with law against any irregularities committed by the petitioner.
5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, there was neither suspension nor cancellation of the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from the dealership of the said Fair Price shop of the petitioner is unsustainable.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the authorities to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price shop dealer of the subject shop. However, if the respondent authorities intend to take action against the irregularities, if any, committed by the petitioner, they are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 08.05.2026 MP
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO.12370 of 2026 08.05.2026
MP