APHC010460872025 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: 23500/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK ARIFULLA, S/O. LATE SYED NAZIRUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.L 137007, R/O. D.NO.4/31, NEELAKANTARAO PETA, RAMAPURAM, 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, RAYACHOTY. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, M.L.S POINT, RAMPAURAM 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 constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in seizure of the Epos Machine and 2 VS,J W.P.No.23500 of 2025 the commodities vide Panchanama, dated 07.08.2025, consequential initiation of the disciplinary proceedings vide show cause notice, dated 11.08.2025 and not supply commodities to me inspite ofno suspension proceedings as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to 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 14, 19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently drop all further proceedings in furtherance of the show cause notice, dated 11.08.2025 and continue me as the fair price shop dealer 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 may be pleased to continue me as the Fair Price Shop dealer by granting stay of all further proceedings inpursuance of the Show Cause Notice in Ref.No.Dl/1091/2025, dated 11.08.2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such 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.23500 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 constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in seizure of the Epos Machine and the commodities vide Panchanama, dated 07.08.2025, consequential initiation of the disciplinary proceedings vide show cause notice, dated 11.08.2025 and not supply commodities to the petitioner in spite of no suspension proceedings as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to 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 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently drop all further proceedings in furtherance of the show cause notice, dated 11.08.2025 and continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer.…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer for Fair Price Shop No.1137007 situated in Neelakantarayapeta Village, Ramapuram Mandalin the year 2006. The said authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders with any complaint either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities. b) While the matter being so, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Ramapuram Mandal on 30.07.2024, respondent No.3 issued 4 VS,J W.P.No.23500 of 2025 proceedings dated 31.07.2024, suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry for committing some irregularities, and in the said impugned proceedings also directed the Tahsildar, Ramapuram Mandal to make alternative arrangements for uninterrupted supply of essential commodities to the cardholders. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17186 of 2024 before this Court, wherein this Court, on 07.08.2024, passed an interim order suspending the proceedings dated 31.07.2024 issued by respondent No.3. In pursuance of the said interim order, the petitioner was continued as the Fair Price Shop dealer vide proceedings dated 22.08.2024. c) Thereafter, the petitioner shop was again inspected on 07.08.2025 by the inspection authorities and identified that there was a variation of 30 kgs of rice, 1 kg of sugar and 1 kg of Ragi powder. As such, based on a report submitted by the Tahsildar on 07.08.2025, respondent No.3 issued a show- cause notice on 11.08.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner on or before 19.08.2025, for which, the petitioner has also submitted his explanation. d) The case of the petitioner is that in spite of the explanation submitted by him stating that the variations found by the inspecting authorities are within the permissible limits of Control Order, 2018, the respondents have stopped the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner even without initiating the disciplinary proceedings against him. 5 VS,J W.P.No.23500 of 2025 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished a copy of the instructions of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that, based on the report dated 07.08.2025 of the Tahsildar, respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice dated 11.08.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner, to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the irregularities. It is further stated that the matter is under consideration, the final order on the show- cause notice is still pending, and as on today, no suspension or cancellation orders have been passed. 5. In view of the above, respondent No.3 has admitted in his instructions that as on today, no disciplinary proceedings have been passed against the petitioner. 6. In this regard, the case of the petitioner squarely falls under the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others 1 , 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 VS,J W.P.No.23500 of 2025 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. 7. In the present case on hand, the respondents, without initiating disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, cannot stop the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary in view of law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment. 8. In the light of the aforesaid 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 the petitioner to distribute them to the cardholders. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 VS,J W.P.No.23500 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 08.09.2025. KGR