APHC010307312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 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: 15430 OF 2025 Between: Chinta Munaiah, S/o Chinta Ramaiah, aged 65 years, Permanent F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1211066, Tarimela Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist, ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, at Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu 3. The Tahsildar, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu 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 or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in restraining the petitioner from functioning as Fair Price Shop Dealer, without supplying the essential commodities, in the absence of passing any order either suspending or cancelling the dealership of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the Respondents to continue to supply essential commodities to the petitioner regularly and allow him to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1211066 of Tarimela Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuram District. 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 issue interim directions to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1211066 of Tarimela Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, by regularly supplying essential commodities, pending disposal of W.P.No. of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010307312025 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: 15430/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Chinta Munaiah AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others 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 D.Dis.No.D1/CS/1264/2000, issued by the 2""* respondent, bearing Shop No.1211066, situated at Tarimela Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuram District, on permanent basis. It is further 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.81438652152024, dated 12.03.2025, 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 12.05.2025 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 in case 3 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 taid down to suspend the iicence. As aiready noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the reievant order have power to suspend the authorization or iicense of the deaier. Without apptying its mind and without taking recourse thereto, the Court should not normaiiy permit the authorities, uniess extraordinary situation exists, to allow them to do something indirectiy, which they cannot do it directly. If a broad proposition to this effect is iaid down, the same, in a given case may amount to abuse of the process of law. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Articie 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 themseives upon appiication of mind come to the conclusion that the irreguiarities 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 iicense is passed, the authorities will have to make an alternative arrangement. But, in a case of this nature, the card hoiders wouid be the worst suffers inasmuch their essentiai commodities would not be supplied to them at all. ” Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies does not dispute the factual matrix of the case. 3. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondents conducted enquiry 12.05.2025. and found certain variations in the stock. But admittedly, till today, no notice is issued to the petitioner, pursuant to the said on 2002(1) ALD 577 4 inspection. In the absence of any action against the petitioner, the cannot stop supplying the essential commodities to the allowed, the card holders would be put to respondents petitioner and if it is sufferance. Therefore the action of the respondents cannot be countenanced. of the above and following the ratio laid down by this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs. District Supply Officer, the 5. In view present Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents to supply Fair Price Shop essential commodities to the petitioner’s situated at Tarimela Village, Singanamala Mandal, No.1211066, Ananthapuram District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR “SC- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, 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 CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 15430 OF 2025 of OY 19 JUl 2W m a: COh . Curreni section ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS