APHC010140872025 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: 7385/2025 Between: Smt. B.A.Manjula Devi, ...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: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in not allotting the essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner at M.Rayapuram Village, Rolla Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, without issuing any notice, though the petitioner’s authorization is valid and subsisting, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer under self help group, namely, Sri Jhansi Mahila Sangam SHG, M.Rayapuram 2 JS,J W.PNo.7385/2025 village, Rolla Mandal. The Vigilance team inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 05.03.2024 and prepared panchanama by showing stock variation. The petitioner has submitted her explanation to the show cause notice dated 11.03.2025. Now, the 3rd respondent has stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged inspection was conducted at the behest of local village politics. Except the show cause notice, no other proceeding was served to the petitioner till date, and the petitioner’s dealership is still subsisting. Now, the 3rd respondent is trying to appoint an authorized person at the instance of local political leaders. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the order of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs. District Supply Officer1. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: “15. It is one thing to say that when an order has been passed by the authority, the Court may pass an interim staying the operation thereof as a result whereof the dealer may carry on business, but it is another thing to say that a deliberate action in not supplying the essential commodities to an authorised dealer even though his authorisation or licence has not been suspended, should be allowed by this Court by refusing to grant a writ although in law he is entitled to. 16. 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 3 JS,J W.PNo.7385/2025 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 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.” 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents submitted that the Revenue Inspector has visited the petitioner’s fair price shop and found huge variation of stock. The copy of the panchanama was also served to the petitioner. He fairly submitted that except the show cause notice, no other proceeding was served to the petitioner. 5. Since the authorization of the petitioner is not yet cancelled or suspended, the petitioner is entitled to run her fair price shop. 6. In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop forthwith. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to conduct enquiry and proceed, in accordance with law. 4 JS,J W.PNo.7385/2025 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 21.03.2025 sj 5 JS,J W.PNo.7385/2025 100 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7385/2025 Date: 21.03.2025 sj