APHC010460052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23878 OF 2025 Between: Itreddy Prashanti, D/o I. Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Dealer, R/o Pattikonda village and mandal, Kurnool district. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Collector (CS), Kurnool Town and Kurnool District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattikonda town, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Pattikonda town, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. The Village Revenue Assistant, Pattikonda town, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. ...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 pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents No. 3 and 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No.1351007 in Pattikonda town, Kurnool district and in entrusting the distribution work to the r respondent without any order of termination or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to Commodities in favour of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No. 1351007 pattikonda town, Kurnool district as usual. 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 to direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to obstruct releasing the essential commodities to FP shop i.e No. 1351007 of Pattikonda Town and Mandal, Kurnool district., as usual till the petitioner’s appointment is terminated or cancelled. release Essential Counsel for the Petitioner; M/s. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following; 1 VS.J W.P.No.23878 of 2025 APHC010460052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY.THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23878/2025 Between: 1.ITREDDY PRASHANTI, D/0 I CHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC DEALER, R/0 PATTIKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST, 2.THE COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL TOWN AND KURNOOL DISTRICT, 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATTIKONDA TOWN PATTIKONDAMANDAL, KURNOOLDISTRICT. 4,THE TAHSILDAR, PATTIKONDA TOWN, PATTIKONDA MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5.THE VILLAGE REVENUE ASSISTANT, PATTIKONDA TOWN, PATTIKONDA MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents No. 3 and 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No 1351007 in 2 VS,J W.P.No.23878 of 2025 Pattikonda town, Kurnool district and in entrusting the distribution work to the 5 respondent without any order of termination or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to Commodities in favour of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No 1351007 Pattikonda town, Kurnool district as usual and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 release Essential 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 direct the respondents 3 to 5not to obstruct releasing the essential commodities to FP shop i.e No. 1351007 of Pattikonda Town and Mandal, Kurnool district., as usual till the petitioner’s appointment is terminated or cancelled, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: r 3 VS,J W.P.No.23878 of 2025 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.23878 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “ to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents No. 3 and 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No.1351007 in Pattikonda town, Kurnool district and in entrusting the distribution work the 5"’ respondent without any order of termination or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner No.1351007 Pattikonda town, Kurnool district as usual. of the to respect of FP Shop in The case of the petitioner is that after the death of one K.Subramanyam on 18.12.2019, who was a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1351007 was kept vacant, in pursuant to an application made by the petitioner, the 3' respondent appointed the petitioner as No.Rc.M.1142/2022, dated 31.12.2022. Since the date 2. as the post a temporary dealer vide proceedings of the petitioner’s appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders concerned authorities. While the matter being so, when the petitioner noticed that petitioner’s fair price shop had been tern^orarily handed over to the S'*" respondent, the petitioner or from the 3. VS,J W.P.No.23878 of 2025 submitted a representation that, without there being issuing any show cause notice appointed as a nominee of the fair respondent to continue the petitioner The grievance of the petitioner is that i to the 3 respondent on 25.04.2025 informing him any complaint against the petitioner and also without or suspension order, the 5'^ respondent had been price shop, and as such in charge of the shop. . in spite of the said representation, respondents either by way of disciplinary or by supplying the essential petitioner has approached this Court. requested the 3 4. no action has been initiated by the proceedings against the petitioner the petitioner. As such, the Today, when the commodities to 5. matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant furnished a copy of instructions of the 3'"' dated 09.09.2025. duly stating that Government Pleader for Civil Supplies respondent vide Rc.M.No.496/2024, the report of the Tahsildar the duties of the fair price shop because of her by the concerned MDU Tahsildar to take as per it was recommended to terminate the petitioner from various complaints received against operator and cardholders and also directing the over all stocks and e-pos machine from the petitioner. In was appointed as a nominee pursuance of office proceedings, the 5“' respondent of fair price shop. 6. As per the said instructions, have initiated the said it can be understood that the respondents action of handing upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, over the shop to the VRA only basing but nowhere it is stated in the said in pursuance of the complaints received from instructions that, i the cardholders, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by the respondents have initiated 5 V5,J W.P.No.23878 of 2025 either issuing a show cause notice, calling for an explanation or conducting any enquiry. In such a case, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the decision of Full Bench reported in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others\ 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 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 Fligh Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, acts sentine and thus it has to protect the citizen from arbitrary and action of the executive. If the licensing authority themselves application of mind come to the conclusion that the or j I qui vive capricious upon irrequiarities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant suspension of hjs licence, it may do so. But, in our considered opinion, the authority yyithout takinq 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 arrangement. But, in a case of this nature, the card holders would be the^vyorst sufferers inasmuch their essential commodities would not be supplied to them at all.” an alternative 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 vs,j W.P.No.23878 of 2025 7. 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 her fair price shop, till her dealership is terminated or till passing an order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 8. 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. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO assistant registrar SECTIO^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra 1. The Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Collector (CS), Kurnool town and Kurnool district. Divisional Officer, Pattikonda town, Pattikonda Mandal, 3. The Revenue Kurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Pattikonda town, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. Assistant, Pattikonda Town, Pattikonda Mandal 5. The Village Revenue Kurnool District. 6. One CC to M/s. Ayesha Azma S., Advocate [OPUC] GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 7. Two CCs to [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED: 11/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 23878 OF 2025 ^2 5 SEP 2025 rrtntSectiotxv5' DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHUOT COSTS