'Can't Hold Two Posts Together': AP High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Fair Price Shop Dealer's Authorization After Election As Sarpanch

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the cancellation of a fair price shop dealer's authorization after he was elected as a Sarpanch, holding that under the State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, a person cannot simultaneously hold the post of Fair Price Shop dealer and a public office such as Sarpanch. 

[2026 LiveLaw (AP) 147]

At the heart of the dispute was whether, in view of G.O.Ms. No. 32 and Clause 17(e) of Form-II under the Control Order, 2018, a Fair Price Shop dealer could continue after being elected as a Sarpanch.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the cancellation of his authorization, which had been affirmed by the appellate authority.

The Court held:

"Two charges have been leveled, one with regard to variation in the stock and the other charge is that the inspecting team noticed that the dealer is acting as a Sarpanch, thereby contravening the Clause XII of G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 03.12.2018 and also the conditions of the authorization Control Order 2018. The stand taken by the petitioner that the authorities are very much aware that the petitioner is a dealer and allowed him to submit his nominations but that cannot be a ground to justify the action of the petitioner. Once he has elected as Sarpanch, either he has to resign the dealership or he has to resign the Sarpanch post."

According to the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated after officials found stock variations during an inspection of his Fair Price Shop. A show cause notice was issued alleging irregularities in stock and that he was functioning as a Sarpanch in violation of the conditions governing Fair Price Shop dealers. His authorization was subsequently cancelled, and the appellate authority upheld the decision.

The petitioner argued that the cancellation orders were passed without due consideration of his reply to the show cause notice, rendering them violative of the principles of natural justice.

He further alleged that the action was driven by political pressure and vindictiveness, and contended that the inspection itself was illegal as officials allegedly broke open the locked Fair Price Shop in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. He also submitted that the authorities, having been aware of his candidature for the post of Sarpanch and having raised no objection at the time, could not subsequently rely on the same ground to cancel his authorization.

The State submitted that the petitioner had incurred disqualification by holding the office of Sarpanch. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.32 and Clause 17(e) of Form-II under the Control Order, 2018, it argued that Fair Price Shop dealers are prohibited from holding any public office and that the authorization was liable to be cancelled on that ground alone.

Accepting the State's contention, the Court observed that the Control Order, 2018 and G.O.Ms.No. 32 clearly prohibit Fair Price Shop dealers from holding public office.

It held that once the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, he could not continue as a Fair Price Shop dealer and was required to resign from either the dealership or the elected office.

Finding no illegality in the cancellation of his authorization, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: R. G. Maddilety v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11415 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vineeth Appasani and Sri Sazid Kallur

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 147