1 VS,J W.P.No.24022 of 2025 APHC010472112025 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: 24022/2025 Between: 1. B ANURADHA, W/O. S.BALAJI NAIK, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF F.P.SHOP.NO. 1244065, SUNNAPUGUTTA THANDA, H/O.KUMMARAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE, KADIRI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, , SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADIRI REVENUE DIVISION, KADIRI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT 4. THE TAHASILDAR, KADIRI RURAL MANDAL, KADIRI. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDHAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, KADIRI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, KUMMARAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE, KADIRI RURAL MANDAL, KADIRI. ...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 2 VS,J W.P.No.24022 of 2025 pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theorder in Rc.No.F/245/2025, dated 21.08.2025 (served on 02.04.2025) issued by the respondent No.3 herein suspending the Fair Price authorization for F.P.No. 1244065, Sunnapugutta Thanda, H/o. Kummaravandlapalli Village, Kadiri Rural Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai Districton omnibus allegations and there being no reason whatsoever contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution Control Order, 2018 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same 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 suspend the operation of the order in Rc.No.F/245/202 5, dated 21.08.2025 (served on 02.04.2025) issued by the respondent No.3 herein suspending the Fair Price authorization for F.P.No. 1244065, Sunnapugutta Thanda, H/o. Kummaravandlapalli Village, Kadiri Rural Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District and further direct the respondents to permit me to supply the essential commodities for public distribution at fair price shop No. 1244065 in Sunnapugutta Thanda, H/o. Kummaravandlapalli Village, Kadiri Rural Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District and not to interfere in the same without following due process of law, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.24022 of 2025 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.24022 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Rc.No.F/245/2025, dated 21.08.2025 (served on 02.04.2025) issued by the respondent No.3 herein suspending the Fair Price authorization for F.P.No.1244065, Sunnapugutta Thanda, H/o Kummaravandlapalli Village, Kadiri Rural Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District on omnibus allegations and there being no reason whatsoever contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution Control Order, 2018 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same…” 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as fair price shop dealer for shop No.1244065, Sunnapugutta Thanda, Kadiri Rural Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, vide proceedings Rc.No.70/2015/B, dated 19.02.2015. The authorization of the said fair price shop has been extended from time to time and is in subsistence till 31.03.2025. 3. While the matter being so, suddenly the petitioner received the impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2025, through which the 3rd respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing by way 4 VS,J W.P.No.24022 of 2025 of a show cause notice calling for explanation before suspending his authorization. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of the instructions of the Tahsildar, Kadiri, dated 11.09.2025, wherein it is stated that, basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Kadiri, the 3rd respondent herein suspended the petitioner’s authorization on the ground that the petitioner committed irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. 6. Except stating so, nowhere it has been mentioned whether any show cause notice was issued calling for an explanation from the petitioner in pursuance of the complaints made by the cardholders. Even on a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be seen that except referring to the representation received from the cardholders dated 14.08.2025, Office Rc.No.425/F/2025, dated 17.07.2025 and the report of the Tahsildar, Kadiri dated 14.08.2025, there is no reference regarding show cause notice which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. As the said impugned proceedings were passed by the 3rd respondent without initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuance of show cause notice calling for an explanation, this Court feels it appropriate to set aside the said impugned proceedings. 5 VS,J W.P.No.24022 of 2025 8. As such, the petitioner’s case falls under the decision of Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1, wherein this 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.” 9. 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 VS,J W.P.No.24022 of 2025 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. 10. 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. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :11.09.2025 JLV