APHC010306302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) K THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15487 OF 2025 Between: Sri Amamcharla Raghu Rami Reddy, S/o Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, aged about 55 years. Fair Price Shop Dealer Shop No.0827002, Korisapad Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatia District. u ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rept., by its Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The District Collector, Bapatia, Prakasam, now Bapatia District. 3. The Joint Collector CS, Prakasam, now Bapatia District, 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Chirala, Prakasam now Bapatia District. 5. The Tahsildar, Korisapadu Mandal, Korisapadu Prakasam now Bapatia District. ...Respondents 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 or any other appropriate Writ, Order declaring the action of the respondents not issuing Essential Commodities to the petitioner, for distribution to the card holders attached to in shop or / No.0827002, in to Korisapadu Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatia District spite of subsisting the petitioners F.P shop authorization and without there being any suspension or cancellation, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018, and consequently direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner and allow the petitioner to distribute the same to the petitioners FP shop. , in lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 supply Essential Commodities to the petitioner and allow the petitioner to distribute the same through MDU Operator to the respective card holders under Public Distribution System, No.0827002, in to Korisapadu Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatia District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: in shop APHC010306302025 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: 15487/2025 Between: Amamcharla Raghu Rami Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI 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 of Shop bearing No.0827002, situated at Korisapadu Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatia 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 on 01.03.2025, for renewal of his authorization by paying the requisite fee and the same is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. While so, 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 12.04.2025 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 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. •s- 3 2. In support of the case of the petitioner, he relied on the order passed in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs. District Supply Officer\ The i 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 atready noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the relevant order have power to suspend the authorization or license 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 of the Constitution of India, acts sentinel gui 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. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondents conducted enquiry on 12.04.2025, and found certain variations in the stock. But admittedly. till today, no notice is issued to the petitioner, pursuant to the said inspection. In the absence of any action against the petitioner, the respondents cannot stop supplying the essential commodities to the 2002(1) ALD 577 4 r petitioner and if it is allowed, the card holders would be put to sufferance. Therefore the action of the respondents cannot be countenanced. 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 5. No.0827002, situated at Korisapadu Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatia 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 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The District Collector, Bapatia, Prakasam, now Bapatia District. 3. The Joint Collector CS, Prakasam, now Bapatia District, 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, Prakasam now Bapatia District. 5. The Tahsildar, Korisapadu Mandal, Korisapadu Prakasam now Bapatia District. 6. One CC to Sri Gnaneswara Rao Mittireddi Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, Fligh Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies TF ■; t . ■ • •'* ■ HIGH COURT j DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 15487 OF 2025 "^fandh^^ ^ ?3M 2025 ^ . Current Section% X ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS