APHC010452662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23866/2025 Between: 1. SIKHAKOLLI KASIVISWANATHAM, S/O CHITTEIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, PERMANENT FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P. SHOP NO.0825015, GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA REVENUE DIVISION, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 4. 5. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES REVENUE INSPECTOR, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed pleased to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23866/2025 SIKHAKOLLI KASIVISWANATHAM, S/O CHITTEIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, PERMANENT FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P. SHOP NO.0825015, GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA REVENUE DIVISION, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. , INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 4. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES REVENUE INSPECTOR, INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA SIKHAKOLLI KASIVISWANATHAM, S/O CHITTEIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, PERMANENT FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P. SHOP NO.0825015, GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA REVENUE , INKOLLU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 4. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES REVENUE INSPECTOR, INKOLLU MANDAL, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the therewith, the High Court may be 2 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 suspend the order in Rc.No.F/169/2025 dated 11.08.2025 passed by respondent, pending disposal of the 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 direct the respondents to continue petitioner running his FP shop No.0825015 situated at Gangavaram Village, Inkollu Mandal, Bapatia District without reference to order in Rc.No.F/169/2025 dated 11.08.2025 passed by 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRADEEP KUMAR A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings Rc.No.F/169/2025 dated 11.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent cancelling the petitioner’s authorization as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and the statutory scheme, set aside the said proceedings and direct restoration of the petitioner as dealer of F.P. shop No.0825015, Gangavaram Village, Inkollu Mandal, Bapatla District with regular supply of essential commodities, and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for shop No.0825015 of Gangavaram Village, Inkollu Mandal, Bapatla District in the year 1990. The petitioner’s authorization was extended from time to time and the petitioner has also paid the challan for extension of the validity of his authorization on 27.02.2025. 3. While the matter being so, on 07.12.2024, the Food Inspector of Yaddanapudi Mandal, accompanying by other officers, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and alleged excess PDS stock and certain variations. The inspecting officials seized the available stock and subsequently the Joint Collector has also directed for disposal of the seized stock, pending 6-A enquiry. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.05.2025, framing charges as against the petitioner. For which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 19.05.2025 categorically denying the allegations. 4 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that inspite of the same, the 3rd respondent has passed final orders, cancelling the authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 11.08.2025, even without conducting any enquiry, only basing upon the explanations submitted by the petitioner & the Food Inspector and the reports of the Food Inspector & Tahsildar. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a copy of the instructions of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.F/169/2025 dated 05.09.2025, wherein, it is admitted that in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 05.05.2025, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 19.05.2025 and it is further stated that, not being convinced with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and basing on the evidence available on record, the 3rd respondent issued orders for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization on 11.08.2025. 7. As per the said instructions, it is clear that respondent No.3 considering the report of the Food Inspector and the Tahsildar, has straight away cancelled the petitioner’s authorization even without conducting any enquiry by duly placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension. A perusal of the impugned proceedings would reflect that except referring to the explanation 5 dated 19.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner in the impugned proceedings, respondent No.3 did not assign any reasons as to how he is not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 8. Further, as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner have not been concluded, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in “Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1” wherein the Court 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”. 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 9. For the aforesaid reasons and also in view of the law laid down by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the said judgment, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting the impugned proceedings Ldis.F/169/2025 dated 11.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3 and the respondents are directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Further, the respondents are also directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner by allowing him 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. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 09.09.2025 MDP