APHC010456352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23134 OF 2025 Between: Sri Vajrala Venkata Reddy, S/o. Venkateswara Reddy, F.P Shop Dealer vide F.P Shop No 0826018, Budawada Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District, aged about 63 years, R/o. D.N0.2-75B, Budawada Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, District. 2. The District Collector Civil Supplies, Bapatia District, Bapatia. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, Bapatia District. 4. The Tahsildar, Janakavaram Panguluru Mandal Bapatia District. 5. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Janakavaram Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District. 6. The Village Revenue Officer VRO, Budavada Village, Janakavaram Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District. Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur ...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 A/ •/ .f -% pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the No. 0826018, Budavada Village stock of petitioner Fair Price Shop Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District, through a mediator report to the 6th Respondent thereby Jpn|ika\/aram '*|lated^6.68.2025, and handing over the same of essential commodities to card notice, without affording an suspension or cancellation unrelated criminal case foisted against 4 pr’d^vehtin^ the petitioner from distribution holder, without issuing any show-cause opportunity of hearing, and without passing any order and the said action is relying on the petitioner or 6A proceedings, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, violative of the principles of natural justice, rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and infringes the fundamental and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents supply/distrib ute the commodities to the card to allow the Petitioner to dealer of F.P Shop No 0826018, Budawada Village, J. Panguluru holders as Mandal, Bapatia 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 Fligh Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned mediator report dated 26.08.2025 as well as the oral suspension directions issued by the respondents, by permit the petitioner to of essential commodities to the cardholders through Fair situated at Budawada Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, continue distribution Price Shop No.0826018 Bapatia District. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order; APHC010456352025 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: 23134/2025 Between: 1.SRI VAJRALA VENKATA REDDY, , S/0. VENKATESWARA REDDY, F.P SHOP DEALER VIDE F.P SHOP NO 0826018, BUDAWADA VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/0. D.N0.2-75B, BUDAWADA VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATIA. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DISTRICT. CHIRALA, BAPATLA 4.THE TAHSILDAR, JANAKAVARAM PANGULURU MANDAL BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5.THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, JANAKAVARAM PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 6.THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER VRO, BUDAVADA VILLAGE, JANAKAVARAM PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): VS,J ^ W.P.No.23134 of 2025 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the stock of petitioner Fair Price Shop No. 0826018, Budavada Village, Janakavaram Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District, through a mediator report dated 26.08.2025, and handing over the same to the 6th Respondent thereby preventing the petitioner from distribution of essential commodities card holder, without issuing any show-cause opportunity of hearing, and without passing any suspension or cancellation order and the said action is relying on unrelated criminal case foisted against the petitioner or 6A proceedings, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, violative of the principles of natural justice, and infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1 )(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to supply/distrib ute the holders as dealer of F.P Shop No 0826018, Budawada Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District and pass 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: to notice, without affording an commodities to the card 3 VS,J W.P. No.23134 of 2025 ORDER. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “....to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the stock of petitioner Fair Price Shop No. 0826018, Budavada Village, Janakavaram Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District, through a mediator report dated 26.08.2025, and handing over the same to the 6"’ Respondent thereby preventing the petitioner from distribution of essential commodities to card holders, without issuing any show-cause notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without passing any suspension or cancellation order and the said action is relying on unrelated criminal case foisted against the petitioner or 6A proceedings, is wholiy arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, violative of the principles of natural justice and infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to supply/distrlbute the commodities to the card holders dealer of F.P. Shop No 0826018, Budawada Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District...” as The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: 2. a) The petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0826018, Budawada Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District about 35 years ago. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing commodities to the cardhodlers. Later, commodities were entrusted to the MDU Operator as per the instructions of the Government, and he has been running the said shop without any compliant or adverse remarks. While the matter being so, an FIR dated 23.08.2025, was b) registered on the file of J.Panguluru Police Station in Cr.No.85 of 2025, 4 VS,J ' ^ W.P.No.23134 of 2025 against the petitioner and another, alleging diversion of PDS rice in an auto. Basing on the said FIR, the 5**^ respondent, along with other officials. inspected the petitioner’s shop on 26.08.2025. During the said inspection, it was recorded that there was no difference between the physical stock and the online stock, which clearly shows that the rice found in the auto on 23.08.2025 had no connection with his shop. The FIR was registered solely on the false statement of the driver, without any supporting evidence. Despite finding no stock variation, the officials prepared a mediator report dated 26.08.2025 in the presence of mediators and orally instructed the petitioner not to distribute stock further. Flowever, without issuing any show-cause notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing, and without passing any suspension order, they seized the stock in the petitioner’s fair price shop and handed it over to the 6^^ respondent/Village Revenue Officer, who has no statutory role under the Essential Commodities Act or the Control Order, 2018, which is illegal arbitrary and violative of natural justice. c) Earlier also, in similar circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24643 of 2024 before this Court, wherein this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 28.10.2024, holding that since no disciplinary action was initiated and no variation in stock was found, the respondents are bound to continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner so long as his dealership is in force, subject to compliance of the legal formalities. T 5 VS,J W.P.No.23134of2025 d) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, though there is a direction from this Court that the petitioner is entitled for supply of the essential commodities so long as his dealership is in force, the stock in the petitioner’s fair price shop was seized through a mediator’s report dated 26.08.2025 and handed over the same to the 6*^ respondent, thereby preventing the petitioner from distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without issuing any show-cause notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without passing any suspension or cancellation order. Challenging the said action, the writ petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant 3. Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without following the due procedure, stopped supply of essential commodities to the 4. petitioner. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished a copy of instructions of the 3'^^ respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of essential commodities to his fair price shop for distribution to the cardholders, under the provisions of A.P. State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018, since he is involved in a criminal case with regard to the functioning of the public distribution system. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has 5. 6 VS,J W.P.No.23134 of2025 admitted that the respondent authorities have not issued any show-cause notice nor called for an explanation from the petitioner. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it is evident that the respondent authorities, without issuing any show-cause notice or any order of suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner. 6. 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 others\ wherein it was categorically held as follows; 7. “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 ^ 2002 (l)ALD 577 7 vs,J <> W.P.No.23134 of2025 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. ; ^ In the present case on hand, the respondents without issuing any show- cause notice or without initiating disciplinary proceedings, if any, in accordance with law, cannot stop the supply of essential connmodities to the view of law laid down in the 8. petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary in aforesaid Judgment. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since has been initiated against the petitioner, the 9. no disciplinary action respondents are hereby directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop and allow the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders as dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0826018, Budawada Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District until any disciplinary action has been initiated as against the petitioner. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall 10. be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 'i //TRUE COPY// ^l^mCER SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector Civil Supplies, Bapatia District, Bapatia. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, Bapatia District. 4 The Tahsildar, Janakavaram Panguluru Mandal Bapatia District. Panguluru Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Janakavaram 5. The Mandal, Bapatia District. The Village Revenue Officer VRO, Budavada Village, Janakavaram 6 Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District. Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh 7. OneCCto Sri. 8. Two CCS to GP For Civil Supplies [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies. AL HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 23134 OF 2025 ^ 17 SEP 2025 <9 Co disposing of the w.p. without costs