h APHC010300412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) K Hi'H THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15366 OF 2025 Between: C. Ramanjula Reddy, S/o Siva Reddy, aged F.P.Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1211020, T Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District about 63 years. Permanent D.No. 2/27, Sodanapalli Village, ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District at Secretariat, 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu. 3. The Tahsildar, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District ...RESPONDENT 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus any other appropriate Writ or Writs Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents i petitioner from distributing the essential or in restraining the commodities to the card holders suspending or cancelling the dealership of and arbitrary and to consequently direct without passing any order either the petitioner, as illegal Respondents to continue to the supply essential commodities to the petitioner I regularly and allow him to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1211020 of Sodanapalli District. Village, Singanarnala Mandal, Ananthapuram lA NO: 1 OF 2C)9fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court issue interim directions to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop No. 1211020 of Singanarnala Mandal, Anahthapuramu may be pleased to Sodanapalli Village District, by regularly supplying essential commodities, pending disposal of W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI N. RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010300412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15366/2025 Between: C Ramanjuia Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2 The Court made the following order: It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer by virtue of proceedings in Rc.No.B/1838/1990, dated 06.06.1990, bearing Shop No.1211020, situated at Sodanapalli Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuram District, on permanent basis. It is further case of the petitioner that his authorization was renewed from time to time and the same was valid up to 31.03.2025. The petitioner claims that he filed application for renewal of his authorization by paying the requisite fee vide Challan No.81421431362024, dated 25.02.2025, and the same is pending consideration before the 2"^^ respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. While things stood thus, the respondents, without following the due procedure contemplated under law and without issuing any notice, refused to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s shop, on the premise that the shop of the petitioner was inspected on 06.06.2025 and certain variations in the stock were found. It is specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that, in order to accommodate person of their choice, the respondents stopped the supply of stock to the petitioner. It is further stated in the 3 affidavit that it is settled law that, without following the procedure contemplated under the Control Orders, the respondent cannot refuse to supply the stock to the petitioner. 2. In support of the case of the petitioner, he relied on the order passed in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs. District Supply Officer\ The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: 16. A statutory authority, it is trite, must act within the four corners of the statue in term of the statutory orders and procedure iaid down to suspend the ticence. /As aiready noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the retevant order have power to suspend the authorization or iicense of the deaier. Without appiying 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 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 license, 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 license 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 suffers inasmuch their essential commodities would not be supplied to them at all. ” 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies does not dispute the factual matrix of the case. 2002(1) ALD 577 4 It is not in dispute that the respondents conducted enquiry on 06.06.2025, and found certain variations in the stock. But admittedly, till today, no notice is issued to the petitioner. 4. pursuant to the said inspection. In the absence of any action against the petitioner, the respondents cannot stop supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner and if it is allowed, the card holders would be put to sufferance. Therefore the action of the respondents cannot be countenanced. 5. In view of the above and following the ratio laid down by this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs. District Supply Officer, the present Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop bearing No. 1211020, situated at Sodanapalli Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuram District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION ^FICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh at Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu 3. The Tahsildar, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District 4. One CC to Sri N. Ranga Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC’s to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies, ssb I ■' HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER WP No. 15366 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS