APHC010465262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23559/2025 Between: 1. E.HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O E.ADINARAYANA MURTHY, AGED 42 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF F P SHOP NO. 1285095, RANI NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ANANTHAPURAMU URBAN MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU 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 or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not allowing the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1285095, Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu, without there being any order of suspension or cancellation of authorisation by the competent authority by following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the VS,J W.P No.23559 of 2025 2 judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Honble Court in WP No. 18337 of 2024 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1285095, Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner 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 to issue interim directions to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1285095 Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu, by regularly supplying essential commodities to the petitioner, pending disposal of W P No. of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P No.23559 of 2025 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not allowing the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.1285095, Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu, without there being any order of suspension or cancellation of authorisation by the competent authority by following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P No.18337 of 2024 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.1285095, Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner and pass such other order or further orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1285095, Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu, vide Authorization No.267/2020, which was duly renewed and is valid up to 31.03.2027. The petitioner has been regularly distributing the essential commodities to cardholders without any complaints. b) On 07.07.2025, Vigilance and Revenue Officials inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop. Though, minor variations were found i.e., 3 kgs rice (excess), 2 pockets of sugar (excess), 1 pocket of jiggery (excess), and 1 pocket of ragi powder (excess) were noted, a panchanama was conducted on the same day. Basing on the same, the respondent No.2 issued a Show Cause Notice in Rc. No.D1CS/1685/2025, dated 21.08.2025, alleging VS,J W.P No.23559 of 2025 4 discrepancies between the Ground stock and the entries in the Complete Stock Register, which are in violation of Clause 12(P)(3) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, and directed the respondent No.3 to initiate necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner. Further directed the petitioner to show cause as to why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. c) The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the respondent No.2 on 23.08.2025 denying the charges leveled against him as baseless and contradictory in nature and stating that the variations found were within the permissible limits under Clause 26 of the 2018 Order. It is further stated that while, it is alleged at one point of time that no physical stock was available, later alleged that minor excess stocks were found. In fact, the officials have not weighed the rice bags properly and included the waste material, dust, stones etc that accumulated on the ground, with a view to register a false case against the petitioner. d) The petitioner further requested the respondent No.2 to consider his explanation and sought for a direction to the respondent No.3 to restore supply of the essential commodities. Under the guise of the inspection conducted and variations found, the respondent authorities have unofficially stopped supply of essential commodities without even finalizing the disciplinary proceedings. VS,J W.P No.23559 of 2025 5 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 while reiterating the contentions, placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench reported in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1 in support of his contention. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to run his fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the card holders. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the stoppage of supplies without following due process amounts to de-facto suspension, which is impermissible under law. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P No.18337 of 2024 dated 21.08.2024 and the relevant portion of which reads as under: “…Since the appointment of the petitioner has not been cancelled or suspended by following any due procedural law by conducting any enquiry or issuing notice, the petitioner is entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer as usual until such appointment is terminated by following due procedure of law. 06. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner on her complying the requirements for such supply, until her appointment is terminated by following due procedure of law…” 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the action of the respondents in all aspects, but, no order 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 VS,J W.P No.23559 of 2025 6 terminating the dealership or suspending or cancelling the authorization is placed on record to deny supply of essential commodities. 7. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it is evident that the respondent authorities, without issuing any order of suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner. 8. 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: “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. VS,J W.P No.23559 of 2025 7 9. In the present case on hand, the respondents without initiating disciplinary proceedings, if any, 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. 10. 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 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. 1285095, Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu until any disciplinary action has been initiated as against the petitioner. 11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:04.09.2025 Ksj