APHC010425392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22298/2025 Between: 1. SUDEPALLI RAVINDRA REDDY, S/O S.NAGI REDDY, AGE47 YEARS, OCC PERMANENT FP SHOP DEALER, SHOPNO.1206035, R/O UTAKALLU VILLAGE, GOOTY MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOIPT COLLECTOR/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, GOOTY MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 toplEased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or Direction declaring the action on the part of Respondents 2 to 4 in not supplying the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No. 1206035, during subsistence of his Pennanent Fair Price Authorization for Shop No. 1206035, Utakallu 2 VS,J W.P.No.22298 of 2025 Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to supply the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No. 1206035, during subsistence of his Permanent Fair Price Authorization for Shop No. 1206035, Utakallu Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District and pass IA 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 Pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 supply the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing Holders of Shop No. 1206035, during subsistence of his Permanent Price Authorization for Shop No.l206035, Utakallu Mandal, Anantapur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.22298 of 2025 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.22298 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or Direction declaring the action on the part of Respondents 2 to 4 in not supplying the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No 1206035, during subsistence of his Permanent Fair Price Authorization for Shop No.1206035, Utakallu Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to supply the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No.1206035 during subsistence of his Permanent Fair Price Authorization for Shop No.1206035 Utakallu Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District and pass…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.1206035, Utakallu Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District and accordingly, the petitioner has been running the same without any remarks. 3. While so, on 05.03.2025, at about 01.30 p.m., the Inspecting Officials inspected the shop and found variation in the stock. Basing on the report of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings under 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by issuing show cause notice on 12.03.2025 calling for an explanation. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent also issued show cause notice on 10.04.2025 calling for an explanation. In pursuance of both show cause notices, the petitioner submitted his explanations dated 25.03.2025 and 16.04.2025 respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without there being any order of suspension or cancellation of his dealership, the respondent 4 VS,J W.P.No.22298 of 2025 authorities are not releasing the essential commodities to his shop. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 5. 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 others1 in support of his contention. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to run his fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the cardholders. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the action of the respondents in all aspects, but, no order terminating the dealership or suspending or cancelling the authorization is placed on record to deny supply of essential commodities. 7. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma’s case (1 supra), wherein it was categorically held as follows: “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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 5 VS,J W.P.No.22298 of 2025 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 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. 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 opinion that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner by allowing her 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 disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :30.08.2025 JLV