Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Chandra Sekhar, vs The State Of A.P. on 9 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No. W.P.No.7936 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
6. 09-09-2021 MGR, J
I.A.No.2 of 2021
The case of the petitioner/proposed
respondent is that she was appointed as a
temporary dealer for Fair Price Shop
No.1204018 of Chabala Village, Vajrakaruru
Mandal, Anantapuramu District vide
proceedings dated 03.06.2021 in place of writ
petitioner, who was a permanent dealer and
facing disciplinary proceedings. In the
proceedings dated 03.06.2020, it is specially
stated that the petitioner is appointed as dealer
for the subject shop on temporary basis until
further orders and her dealership is
automatically terminated if the disciplinary
proceedings are disposed of in favour of writ
petitioner in any court. Hence, she is a proper
and necessary party to adjudicate the issue.
Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/proposed
respondent, states that the petitioner is a
temporary dealer appointed in place of
permanent dealer and she is proper and
necessary party to the writ proceedings. In
support of his contention, he relied on the
decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of M.Vanaja Vs. V.Balaseshamma and
others [2007(4) ALD 388 (FB)].
Sri N.Prem Raj, learned counsel for the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner, while reiterating the
averments of the counter, states that the
petitioner is only a temporary dealer and she is
appointed as a temporary dealer subject to the
outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. He
further states that by the time of filing the
present writ petition, the petitioner is not
appointed as a temporary dealer. Hence, the
question of adding the petitioner as a party-
respondent does not arise.
This Court, on 08.07.2021, while ordering
notice before admission, suspended the
cancellation order dated 23.01.2021 passed by
the 4th respondent herein. In spite of
suspension order passed by this Court, the
dealership is not restored to the 1st respondent/
writ petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the
submissions of the learned counsel, and on
perusal of the record, this Court found that the
petitioner is not a proper and necessary party to
adjudicate the issue raised in the writ petition as
the petitioner is appointed only as a temporary
dealer in place of writ petitioner, who is a
permanent dealer, pending disposal of
disciplinary proceedings. Further, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Vs.
State of U.P. and others [2016(3) ALD 17 SC]
held that temporary dealer has no locus standi
to contest the matter either before the appellate
authority or before the writ courts.
Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, the petition is dismissed.
_________________
M. GANGA RAO, J
W.P.No.7936 of 2021
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Civil Supplies states that Counter along with
Vacate petition is filed.
Post on 16.09.2021.
_________________
M. GANGA RAO, J
anr
