APHC010118872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6124/2025 Between: Smt K.nagendraPrabhavathi, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 3rd and 4threspondentsin not allotting the essential commodities to the fair price shop held by the petitioner at Velidandla Village (Shop.No.1119005) of Lingala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without there being any reason, though the petitioner’s authorization is valid and subsisting, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and principles of natural justice, and consequently, direct the 2 respondents to continue the petitioner to hold fair price shop Dealership of Velidandla Village (Shop.No.1119005) of Lingala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a permanent fair price shop dealer for Shop.No.1119005 of Velidandla Village, Lingala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. She has also paid challan on 21.02.2024 for renewal of his license. On 20.07.2024, the staff of the respondent No.5 has inspected the shop and submitted report to the respondent No.5, based on which, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.4 on 30.07.2024. Petitioner has submitted her explanation to the show cause notice. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4, without taking any action, stopped supplying of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. When a similar question has fell for consideration before this Hon’ble Court in OletiTirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others1, it is held in para No.15 as follows:- “15. A statutory authority, it is trite, must act within the four corners of the statute in terms of the statutory orders and procedure laid down to suspend the licence. As already noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the relevant orders have power to suspend the authorisation or licence of the dealer. Without applying its mind and without taking recourse thereto, the Court should not normally permit the authorities, unless extraordinary situation exists, to allow them to do something indirectly, which they cannot do it directly. If a broad proposition to this effect is laid down, the same, in a given case may amount to abuse of the 1(2002) 1 ALD 577 3 process of law. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, acts sentinel qui vive and thus it has to protect the citizen from arbitrary and capricious action of the executive. If the licensing authority themselves upon application of mind come to the conclusion that the irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant suspension of his licence, it may do so. But, in our considered opinion, the authority without taking recourse to the said action, cannot, refuse to supply the essential commodities. In the event an order of suspension of licence is passed, the authorities will have to make an alternative arrangement. But, in a case of this nature, the card holders would be the worst sufferers inasmuch their essential commodities would not be supplied to them at all.” 3. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 4. Except issuing show cause notice on the report submitted by the respondent No.5, the respondents have not issued any suspension or cancellation proceedings to the petitioner. In the absence of the same, the respondents cannot stop supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s shop as it violates the principles of natural justice. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop on condition of the petitioner complying the requirements of supply so long as the authorisation of the petitioner is in force. However, it is open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by following due process of law.No order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 11.03.2025 SCS 5 53 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6124/2025 Date: 11.03.2025 SCS 6 294 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6124/2025 Date:-11.03.2025 SCS