1 APHC010466492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24806/2025 Between: 1. USTHELA RAJA RAO, S/O VELUGONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.0832012, RESIDENT OF 2-3IB, KONDAREDDI PALLE, H.M. PADU (M), PRAKASAM (D), A.P. -523227 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR (D) 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES), O/O DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI REVENUE DIVISION, PRAKASAM (D), ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE TAHSILDAR, H.M. PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 3RD respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner dated 14.07.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 AND 21 of Indian 2 Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0832012, situated at Kondareddi Palle Village and H.M. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District, and pass 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 suspend the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0832012, situated at Kondareddi Palle Village & H.M. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GANIPAY SUNEEL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 3RD respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner dated 14.07.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 AND 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0832012, situated at Kondareddi Palle Village and H.M. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District, and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0832012, Kondareddypalli village, H.M. Padumandal, Prakasam district, in the year 2008 and has been distributing essential commodities to cardholders ever since, without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the respondent authorities. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 17.05.2025, the Deputy Tahsidlar, Enforcement and Food Inspector inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found shortage of 120 kilograms of PDS rice and also found that the registers/stock board were not displayed. Basing on a report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 14.07.2025 suspended the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop bearing No.083.2012, Kondareddypalli village, H.M.Padumandal, however, without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such, the present writ petition is filed. 4 4. Heard Sri. Ganipay Suneel Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has produced a copy of show cause notice issued to the petitioner pending the present writ petition, i.e. on 04.09.2025 wherein two charges were framed against the petitioner and sought explanation from the petitioner within seven days. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner had already submitted his explanation on 12.09.2025 and that no action has been taken up thereafter. 6. Earlier, a similar question came up before the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Oleti Tirupathamma’s case (1 supra) 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 5 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 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. In view of the above and in view of the fact that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner pending the present writ petition seeking an explanation from the petitioner and as the petitioner had already submitted his explanation, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 12.09.2025 and to pass appropriate orders on the same, by duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by following the principles of natural justice. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that till the finalization of the aforesaid proceedings, the respondents are directed to continue supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop bearing No.0832012 at Kondareddypalli village, H.M. Padumandal, Prakasam district. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 14.07.2025 of the 3rd respondent are hereby set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :16.09.2025. Gss