APHC010434152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22688/2025 Between: 1. P MALIKARJUNA, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. PERMANENT DEALER OF THE FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1147001, SUDDALAVANDLAPALLE VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANNAMAYYA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, C RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SAMBEPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, LAKKIREDDI PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not allotting the 2 VS,J W.P.No.22688 of 2025 commodities to me inspite of the lapse of suspension ordered vide proceedings, dated 25.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue me as the fair price shop dealer and allot commodities for distribution 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 not appoint any other fair price shop dealer in my place for the subject shop, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 allot commodities in my favor for distribution by suspending the disciplinary proceedings initiated against me, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.22688 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not allotting the commodities to the petitioner inspite of the lapse of suspension order vide proceedings, dated 25.07.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer and allot commodities for distribution …” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1147001, situated in Gopagudipalli Village, Ramapuram Mandal in the year 2006. Since the date of his appointment, he has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaints either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 04.09.2024, suspending the petitioner’s authorization. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.22045 of 2024, wherein this Court granted an interim direction directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition. 4 VS,J W.P.No.22688 of 2025 4. Subsequently, based on a complaint given by one Y.Srinivasulu to 4th respondent alleging that the petitioner was working as an Animator in the Velugu Department (PD DRDA, Sambepalli Mandal), the 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 14.11.2024, once again suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry. Challenging the said proceedings as being in violation of the principles of natural justice and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was again constrained to file W.P.No.26607 of 2024 before this Court. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 18.11.2024 to permit the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop dealer to the subject shop. However, in spite of the subsisting interim orders passed by this Court, the respondents failed to implement the same, which compelled the petitioner to file Contempt Case No.4607 of 2024. Thereafter, in March 2025, the respondents implemented the orders of this Court and commenced allotment of essential commodities to the petitioner. Since then, the petitioner has been continuing as the Fair Price Shop dealer without any interruption. 5. While the matter being so, on 11.07.2025, the respondents again inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and found no variation in the stocks and left the premises without raising any objection. However, surprisingly, the respondents issued a show-cause notice on 24.07.2025, alleging stock variation and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 31.07.2025 as to why his authorization should not be suspended. Further, vide proceedings dated 25.07.2025, the petitioner’s authorization was placed under 5 VS,J W.P.No.22688 of 2025 suspension till 31.07.2025. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.07.2025 clearly stating the reason for the alleged variations. 6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not communicated to him any proceedings extending the suspension period beyond 31.07.2025, nor any order cancelling his authorization, or any decision dropping the proceedings. As the suspension, by their own order, was operative only until 31.07.2025, in the absence of an express extension, it stands lapsed. Therefore, the continued non-allotment of commodities to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Furthermore, now the 3rd respondent is attempting to make alternative arrangements for the Fair Price Shop which is impermissible. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 25.07.2025. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on oral instructions, has informed this Court that in pursuance of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, no action has been initiated by the respondents and further stated that the enquiry is under process. 9. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be seen that, without even calling for any explanation from the petitioner, the petitioner’s authorization has been temporarily kept under suspension till 31.07.2025, pending completion of the enquiry. Admittedly, no show cause notice was 6 VS,J W.P.No.22688 of 2025 issued to the petitioner; the said impugned proceedings have been issued by the 3rd respondent herein. 10. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others1, 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 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. 11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization, without issuing a show cause 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 7 VS,J W.P.No.22688 of 2025 notice or affording an opportunity of explanation, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary in view of law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 25.07.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent. It is needless to say that the respondents shall supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 01.09.2025. KGR