APHC010134782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6887/2025 Between: M Venkata Subba Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No.0835007, Atchampeta Village Racherla Mandal, Prakasam Dist., without any order of suspension or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and pass any other order…” 2 JS,J W.P.No.6887/2025 2. The petitioner is a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.0835007 situated in Atchampeta Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District which is valid up to 31.03.2025. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar along with Village Revenue Officer have noticed variation of stock and forcibly obtained signature on the report, without supplying copy of panchanama. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop is subsisting, the petitioner is entitled to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders. The respondents, without an order of suspension or cancellation of authorization, cannot refuse to supply the essential commodities to an authorized dealer, as the card holders as such are being deprived of a beneficial scheme undertaken by the State. 4. Further, learned counsel relied upon the citation referred by this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer1 wherein this Court has held that: “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 process of law. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 3 JS,J W.P.No.6887/2025 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.” 5. On perusal of records, it is observed that the respondent have issued two simultaneous proceedings on 12.02.2025 i.e., i) show cause notice calling for explanation of confiscation of seized stock and ii) interim custody to take possession of the seized stock. The authorities have power to suspend the authorization or license of the dealer, without taking recourse under the statue, they cannot refuse to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s shop as the card holders would suffer if the essential commodities are not supplied. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner’s authorization is valid up to 31.03.2025 and no material is placed with regard to renewal of the authorization. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop on production of his renewal of authorization and if the petitioner has complied with other formalities in the regular course until any action is taken as against the petitioner without violating the law and principles of natural justice. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 JS,J W.P.No.6887/2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 21.03.2025 KAS 5 JS,J W.P.No.6887/2025 282 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6887/2025 Date: 21.03.2025 KAS 6 JS,J W.P.No.6887/2025