APHC010259072020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17080/2020 Between: 1. NEKURI HARISH BABU, S/O LATE NEKURIPRAKASAM, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC. F.P SHOP DEALER, R/O HUNDESWARAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, ASHOKNAGAR, BANDAR ROAD, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, SEETHANAGARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, HUNDESWARAPURAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17080/2020 NEKURI HARISH BABU, S/O LATE NEKURIPRAKASAM, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC. F.P SHOP DEALER, R/O HUNDESWARAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, ASHOKNAGAR, BANDAR ROAD, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA THE JOINT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT OLLECTOR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, SEETHANAGARAM, EAST GODAVARI THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, HUNDESWARAPURAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA NEKURI HARISH BABU, S/O LATE NEKURIPRAKASAM, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC. F.P SHOP DEALER, R/O HUNDESWARAPURAM, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, ASHOKNAGAR, BANDAR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA THE JOINT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT OLLECTOR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, SEETHANAGARAM, EAST GODAVARI THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, HUNDESWARAPURAM 2 VILLAGE, SEETHANAGARAMMANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not allocating the essential commodities to the petitioner herein without passing any Order of Suspension or cancellation of Fair Price shop dealership of the petitioner in respect of F.P Shop No.31 of Hundeswarapuram village as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of the Orders of this Honourable Court apart from Principles of Natural Justice and consequentially direct the respondents to allocate essential commodities to the petitioner in respect of F.P Shop No. 31, Hundeswarapuram village, SeethanagaramMandal, East Godavari District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allocate essential commodities to the petitioner herein in respect of F.P Shop No. 31, Hundeswarapuram village, SeethanagaramMandal, East Godavari District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.17080 of 2020 ORDER: The present Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not allocating the essential commodities to the petitioner herein without passing any Order of Suspension or cancellation of Fair Price shop dealership of the petitioner in respect of F.P Shop No.31 of Hundeswarapuram village as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of the Orders of this Hon’ble Court apart from Principles of Natural Justice and consequentially direct the respondents to allocate essential commodities to the petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No.31 Hundeswarapuram village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer vide proceedings dated 09.06.2014 on compassionate grounds, after the demise of his father. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. While the matter being so, on 18.04.2016, an inspection was conducted in petitioner’s fair price shop by respondent Nos.6 & 7 and the petitioner was orally informed that there was a variation in the stock of P.D.S rice and sugar. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that thereafter, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, but, however, no disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against 4 him. However, on 31.05.2016, petitioner received a show cause notice under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 from respondent No.4, alleging that there was a variation in the stock, as stated above, wherein, petitioner was directed to submit explanation within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice and also directed the petitioner to appear in person on 07.06.2016 at 3:00 P.M. at the Sub- Collector’s Office at Rajamahendravaram, in case petitioner wants a personal hearing. Petitioner submitted his written explanation and also appeared before respondent No.4 on the above mentioned date, but, however, the petitioner was not issued any order of suspension and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated for suspension or cancellation and also no copy of the panchanama/mediator’s report was furnished to him. But, in spite of the same, as the petitioner was not supplied with the essential commodities, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 09.10.2020, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim order: The petitioner's fair price shop was inspected on 18.04.2016 and pursuant to the same, a show cause notice, dated 31.05.2016 was issued wherein it was alleged that there were some variations in the stock. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.06.2016 to respondent No.4. Thereafter, no orders have been passed despite repeated enquiries made by 5 the petitioner and nothing is divulged as to whether any order has been passed on the proposed action contemplated against the petitioner. The petitioner, under the said circumstances, approached this Court alleging inter alia that the respondents without passing any order of suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop dealership has not been allowing stocks to the petitioner to run the fair price shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard submits that the action of the respondents as stated above is not tenable and places reliance on the judgment of full Bench i.e., Voleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supplies Officer, Visakhapatnam (2002 (1) ALD 577) and seeks interim direction as prayed for. Despite granting opportunity to the respondents, no order of suspension or cancellation if any passed against the petitioner has been placed before this Court. No doubt it is true that the petitioner has not approached this Court at the earliest point of time. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no order of suspension or cancellation has been passed against the petitioner and which fact could not be disproved by the respondents, this Court is inclined to grant an interim order, keeping in view of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be interim direction as prayed for. However, this order would not preclude the authorities from passing appropriate orders after giving due opportunity of hearing of the petitioner in the enquiry, if any, in respect of cancellation of dealership. It is also made it clear that if any permanent dealer is appointed in place of the petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to bring the said aspect to the notice of this Court, so that appropriate orders would be passed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to the 6 variations even in the stock of PDS rice and sugar for initiating disciplinary action, except issuing show cause notice under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, which, in fact is for confiscating the goods from the petitioner’s shop. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioner has been running the fair price shop. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions, placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench reported in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and other1 in support of his contention, wherein, the Court held as follows – “Such action disabling fair price shop dealer to run the shop without any order of suspension or cancellation is illegal and arbitrary and issued such directions”. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of the written instructions of respondent No.5 dated 01.07.2024, wherein, it is stated that in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court on 09.10.2020, the details of the petitioner has been mapped in ePOS device and he is running the shop as on date. 8. In view of the law laid down by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 7 opinion that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the respondents are directed to continue supply of essential commodities to the petitioner by allowing him to distribute the same to the card holders, allotted to his fair price shop, till his dealership is terminated or till passing an order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 18.08.2025 MDP