JUDGMENT : A.V. Sesha Sai, J. 1. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri N. Aswarthanarayana, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture for respondent Nos.4 to 8, apart from perusing the material available on record. 2. Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.34931 of 2016 is the appellant in the present Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the aforesaid Writ Petition, assailing the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazaars, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur-8th respondent herein, dated 26.09.2016. By way of the aforesaid proceedings, the Chief Executive Oficer-8th respondent herein, engaged the appellant herein as Estate Officer, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. The present Writ Petition No.34931 of 2016 came to be instituted on 26.10.2016. The learned Single Judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while ordering notices, suspended the operation of the proceedings dated 26.09.2016 till further orders. After receipt of the notices, the respondents in the Writ Petition, contested the Writ Petition by filing counter affidavits. Eventually, the learned Single Judge, by way of an order dated 21.10.2022, allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer dated 26.09.2016. Challenging the validity and legal sustainability of the aforesaid order, the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition has come up before this Court by way of this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the writ appellant contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is highly erroneous and contrary to law and also not in consonance with the material available on record. In elaboration, it is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that since the allegations and averments in the Writ Affidavit are in the nature of public interest, the learned single Judge ought to have relegated to the writ petitioners for such remedy. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that since the allegations and averments in the Writ Affidavit are in the nature of public interest, the learned single Judge ought to have relegated to the writ petitioners for such remedy. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in treating the Writ Petition as one in the nature of quo warranto in the absence of any statutory violation, which is a condition precedent while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of quo warranto. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent-writ appellant herein. 4. On the contrary Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein contends that in view of the misbehaviour exhibited by the writ appellant during his term of office in the category of Estate Officer and on the recommendation of the Joint Collector, the services of the appellant herein were terminated by the Chief Executive Officer-8th respondent herein vide order dated 01.09.2016. It is further contended by the learned counsel that questioning the said order of termination, the appellant herein earlier filed W.P.No.30572 of 2016 and the same was withdrawn by the writ appellant at a later point of time and the order of termination attained finality. 5. In the above background, the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court in the present Writ Appeal are: 1. Whether the order of the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the present Writ Appeal, is sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the writ appellant is entitled for any relief from this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? 6. The information available before this Court manifestly discloses that obviously on the basis of the information received from the office of the Joint Collector vide letter dated 12.08.2016, the Chief Executive Officer-8th respondent herein vide proceedings No.RBZ/2413/2016, dated 01.09.2016 dispensed with the service of the writ appellant. 6. The information available before this Court manifestly discloses that obviously on the basis of the information received from the office of the Joint Collector vide letter dated 12.08.2016, the Chief Executive Officer-8th respondent herein vide proceedings No.RBZ/2413/2016, dated 01.09.2016 dispensed with the service of the writ appellant. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the 5 Regional Joint Director of Kadapa, pursuant to the direction of the Director of Agriculture and Marketing, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report vide Lr.No.113/2016, dated 23.09.2016 and the last three paragraphs of the report read as follows: “Further, it is submitted that, Sri S. Ayyapan Pillai, Estate Officer has submitted a statement (copy enclosed), he is working as Estate Officer from 1999, he is discharge his duties as Estate Officer as per manual and G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 16.02.2012 and followed the instructions of higher officers from time to time. Nearly 1000 to 12000 farmers coming to the Rythu Bazaar and he is following the guidelines for fixation of prices each vegetable, based on the wholesale price and he observed the sale of vegetables to the consumers and monitoring day to day and sending prices to all offices and conducted “Pappula Mela”. The Hon’ble M.L.A. has also participated and appreciated for his initiation for conducting organized programme. Sri S. Ayyappan Pillai, Estate Officer has sending prices and reports to the higher authorities day to day as per guidelines of the G.O’s in force. Basing on the prices of Estate Officer, the T.T.D. Devasthanam has procured vegetables from Chilliganipalli farmers Society from 01.08.2015 without any complaint. Under the circumstances explained above and on verification of the records, there is no misappropriation of funds or mis-utilisation of the funds in Rythu Bazaar, Thirupathi. Moreover the allegations made by the complainants are in general not in specific. I request the Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazaars, O/o Commissioner and Director of Agrl. Marketing, Guntur to kindly consider the request of the Hon’ble M.L.A., who is the public representative of the Thirupathi Assembly constituency for reinstatement of the Estate Officer Sri S. Ayyappan Pillai and transferred to Rythu Bazaar, Chittoor, as he is having 9 years of service as Estate Officer.” 7. Obviously, in pursuance of the aforesaid report, the Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazaars, vide proceedings No.RBZ/2413/2016, dated 26.09.2016 engaged the writ appellant as Estate Officer, however, with certain conditions. Obviously, in pursuance of the aforesaid report, the Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazaars, vide proceedings No.RBZ/2413/2016, dated 26.09.2016 engaged the writ appellant as Estate Officer, however, with certain conditions. The fact remains that as against the order of termination dated 01.09.2016, the writ appellant herein earlier filed W.P.No.30572 of 2016 before this Court on 29.09.2016 and the same was withdrawn subsequently. In W.P.No.34931 of 2016, counter affidavits were filed not only by the official respondents, but also by the 6th respondent-writ appellant herein. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to certain paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by the Chief Executive Officer-8th respondent herein. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the said counter affidavit read as follows: “4. In reply to para No.5, it is submitted that in view of the report Regional Joint Director of Marketing, Kadapa to conduct Enquiry against Sri S. Ayyappan Pillai, Estate Officer, Rythu Bazar, Tirupathi enquiring report vide leter No.113/2016 dated 23.09.2016 stating that the estate officer Sri S. Ayyappan Pillai strictly followed the instructions of the higher official from time and he is following the guidelines for fixation of prices each vegetables based on the wholesale price and he observed the sale of vegetables to the consumers and monitoring day to day and sending reports to all officers like Commissioner, Chief Executive Officer, RJD, ADM Chittoor. He is maintaining good amity with farmers and consumers he always explained the activities of Rythu Bazar. Farmers and consumers came to know that his termination regarding that based on his good faith, performances, sincerity and services. The farmers and consumers wrote many letters to the authorities regarding the sincerity of the Estate Officer. Simultaneously they approached to the MLA who is the public representative TPT Assembly Constituency similarly MLA Smt. M. Sugunamma requested to consider for reinstatement of estate officer Sri S. Ayyappan Pillai, Estate Officer. We found that the complaints made allegations against the estate officer, made by the persons who are beneficiaries of the shops and stalls. Though we have issued many notices to the above shop beneficiaries to vacate the stalls but they have been disregarding the notices and not vacating the shops till today. We found that the complaints made allegations against the estate officer, made by the persons who are beneficiaries of the shops and stalls. Though we have issued many notices to the above shop beneficiaries to vacate the stalls but they have been disregarding the notices and not vacating the shops till today. RJD’s enquiry report has seconded the opinion of the local MLA Smt. M. Sugunamma who is public representative of the Tirupathy Assembly constituency, for reinstatement of Estate Officer, Rythu Bazar, Tirupathi S. Ayyappan Pillai, considering the report of RJD he was re-engaged as Estate Officer. Vide Proc No.RBZ/2413/2016 dated 26.09.2016 and he was transferred to Rythu Bazaar, Chittoor. As such the orders issued vide Proc No.RBZ/2413/2016 dated 26.09.2016 re-engaging as Estate Officer, is legally valid. 5. In reply to Para No’s 6 & 7, it is submitted that reengagement orders dated 26.09.2016 issued to Sri S. Ayyappan Pillai, as Estate Officer, Rythu Bazar, Chittoor is done duly correcting and Administrative as such as such it is legally valid. The statement stating that the present Estate Officer, Rythu Bazar, Chittoor expressing that he has got every much influence in the Government and that at any time he will be posted as Estate Officer, Rythu Bazar, Tirupathi is only the presumption of the petitioners and there is no truth in it. With regard to cancellation of stalls allotted to the petitioners will be done as per the Guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.29 Agriculture & Cooperation Department dated 16.02.2012 as the allotment of duration of stalls were exceeded more than 3 years. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition being service matter in nature. However the 6th Respondent is posted for serving the small and marginal farmers to earn their livelihood elsewhere, as such the petitioners cannot have any grievance in this regard. 6. It is submitted that Re-Engagement Orders issued Sri S. Ayyappan Pillai, Estate Officer, Chittoor vide Proceedings No.Rythu Bazar/2413/2016 dated 26.09.2016 is ordered following the Administrative Procedure; as such it is legal and valid and proper, and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. 6. It is submitted that Re-Engagement Orders issued Sri S. Ayyappan Pillai, Estate Officer, Chittoor vide Proceedings No.Rythu Bazar/2413/2016 dated 26.09.2016 is ordered following the Administrative Procedure; as such it is legal and valid and proper, and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is submitted that, M. Subramanyam Reddy and Two others who are abusing the notices to vacate shops not withstanding issuing the notices to them with due process of law, they are not vacated, and illegally enjoying the stalls and shops approached the Hon’ble High Court and obtained Interim order without remitting real facts on 27.10.2016. 8. It would also be appropriate to refer to counter-affidavit filed by the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition, who is the appellant herein: “5. I submit that in reply to Para 3 of the writ affidavit that it is true that the petitioners are running business in Rythu Bazaar, Tirupathi. Initially, the department allotted the shops to the petitioners and thereafter without any valid renewal they are continuing their business. The 1st petitioner entered in the Rythu Bazaar, Tirupathi though M/s Siva Sakthi Youth Association (CMEY Group) and the permission accorded to transact business is only for a period of Five (05) Years in the year 1998-99 which was expired long ago and the same is not existing now and I brought to the notice of higher authorities about this issue in the year 2014 and the 4th respondent issued notice to the 1st petitioner to that effect on 24.06.2016 and issued final notice on 14.10.2016 and without disclosing the smae, the 1st petitioner filed this writ petition and it is clearly shows that the petitioner has no locus standi to questioning my posting at Rythu Bazaar, Chittoor. I Submit that the 2nd petitioner has no valid license to run business in Shop No.19 and 20 of Rythu Bazaar, Tirupathi and the same was allotted to his father in the year 2002, but the second petitioner having license for shop No.23 and 24. During visit of the Director, Agriculture Marketing in the month of May, 2016 it is noticed that he utilized the shops for other purposes and directed to take steps to vacate him from the shops 23 and 24 and immediately I submitted a report to the 4th respondent for taking appropriate action on 07-06-2016. During visit of the Director, Agriculture Marketing in the month of May, 2016 it is noticed that he utilized the shops for other purposes and directed to take steps to vacate him from the shops 23 and 24 and immediately I submitted a report to the 4th respondent for taking appropriate action on 07-06-2016. In view of that the 4th respondent is also issued a memo for removal of shop No.23 & 24 on 14.10.2016 and suppressing the same the 2nd petitioners filed this writ petition against me without any locus standi. In respect of 3rd petitioner, he is having two shops in his name shop No.45 and 46 and in addition that doing business shop No.49 & 50 in the name of Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Rice Mill without any valid permission and he is also suffered punishment of penalty in File No.D1/1503/2008 dt. 15-1- 2009 on the file of the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor. Since, I am doing my duties sincerely and giving report to the higher authorities, they developed bore grudge against me and filed false complaints and succeeded to change my posting from the Tirupathi to Chittoor. In spite of that without satisfying the same now they filed present writ petition with false allegations without any locus standi.” 9. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that learned Single Judge did not advert to the aforesaid mentioned averments in the counter affidavit filed by both the official and unofficial respondents in the Writ Petition. It is a settled and well established principle of law that the person applying for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is expected to approach the Court with clean hands, but not for the purpose of settling scores. Admittedly, in the instant case, pursuant to the report of the Regional Joint Director and keeping in view the contents of the said report, the Chief Executive Officer issued the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition, reengaging the writ appellant as Estate Officer. The findings of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners can maintain the present Writ Petition for quo warranto, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not tenable as there is neither the allegation of violation of any statutory provision nor there is a public office. The findings of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners can maintain the present Writ Petition for quo warranto, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not tenable as there is neither the allegation of violation of any statutory provision nor there is a public office. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the very Writ Petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein is not maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2022 in W.P.No.34931 of 2016. No order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.