APHC010446062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23541/2025 Between: 1. SMT. KURAGANTI KANTHAMMA,, W/O RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, FAIR PRICE SHOP NO. 0782026, R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR, SIBIRUM, MANGALAGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, TENALI DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondent no. 2 and 3 in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop no. 0782026, situated in Mangalagiri Town and Mandal, Guntur District. Without there being any suspension or cancellation of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India consequently direct the respondents no. 2 and 3 to supply essential commodities to the petitioner 2 VS,J W.P.No.23541 of 2025 for fair price shop no. 0782026, situated in Mangalagiri Town and Mandal, Guntur District. And pass such 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.23541 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents No. 2 and 3 in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No. 0782026, situated in Mangalagiri Town and Mandal, Guntur District. Without there being any suspension or cancellation of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India consequently direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to supply essential commodities to the petitioner for fair price shop No. 0782026, situated in Mangalagiri Town and Mandal, Guntur District…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as the Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0782026, situated at Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner’s authorization was extended from time to time. Since the date of her appointment, she has been distributing essential commodities to cardholders without any complaints or irregularities. b) While the matter being so, respondents No.2 and 3, without conducting any enquiry or issuing any notice, suspension/cancellation order, unilaterally prevented the petitioner from distributing essential commodities to the cardholders. Subsequently, a panchanama was prepared by the respondents, making false allegations of stock variations and excess stock discrepancies, contrary to actual records and without following due process of law. 4 VS,J W.P.No.23541 of 2025 c)The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.2 and 3 have illegally removed the petitioner’s name from the Electronic Point of Sale (EPOS) machine and inserted the name of the Village Revenue Officer (VRO), without issuing any show-cause notice or passing any suspension or cancellation order, and thereby stopped the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s shop. Challenging the action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without following the due procedure, stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished a copy of instructions of the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that, based on credible information and as per the instructions of the District Administration, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Mangalagiri, along with the Ward Revenue Secretary, Bapanaiah Nagar of Mangalagiri, conducted a surprise inspection of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop in the presence of mediators on 26.07.2025. During the said inspection, they have identified certain variations, and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued on 21.08.2025, calling for an explanation from the petitioner, to which, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 25.08.2025. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Mangalagiri recommended 5 VS,J W.P.No.23541 of 2025 enabling the dealer’s authorization in the e-POS by deleting the nominee details and continuing the petitioner as the Fair Price Shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. It is further submitted that upon completion of the enquiry, appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law. 6. As per the said instructions, it is an admitted fact that, though a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.08.2025 calling for an explanation, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as on today. 7. 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 VS,J W.P.No.23541 of 2025 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 the present case on hand, the respondents, without initiating any disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law, cannot stop the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment. 9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, since no disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner, the respondents are hereby directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and allow her to distribute them to the cardholders until any disciplinary action has been initiated as against the petitioner. 10. With the above directions, 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 : 08.09.2025. KGR