APHC010604432024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the ninth day of May, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Writ Petition No. Between: C. Padmavathi a n d The State of Andhra Pradesh and Counsel for the petitioner: 1. N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for the respondent 1. G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the ninth day of May, two thousand and twenty five Present he Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.10 of 2025 ...Petitioner f Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents etitioner: espondents: upplies The Court made the following: [3311] Friday, the ninth day of May, two thousand and twenty five Petitioner Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.10 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or direction, declaring and setting aside the Order, dated 16.12.2024, in D. Dis.No. B2/1094/2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondents to forthwith continue the petitioner as F.P. shop dealer for shop No. 1202019 of Sreedharagatta Village, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District by regularly supplying the essential commodities. 2. The case of the petitioner is, briefly, as follows: The petitioner is the dealer of the shop for several years and has been running it without any blame. While so, on 15.11.2024, on the basis of a report of the 3rd respondent under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, a show cause notice vide Rc.No.192/2024 dated 10.10.2024, was issued to the petitioner, without furnishing a copy of the report or the connected records, calling upon to explain the following false charges: a) The dealer failed to make available schedule commodities physically as per the balances shown in the e-POs generated prints to cross check the variation in stocks. There is shortage of 240 Kgs of fortified rice, excess of 166.07 Kgs of jowar and excess of 260 (1/2 Kgs) packets of sugar in the F.P. shop at the time of inspection and thus, the dealer contravened Clause 12 (p) (3) of A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order’). 3 BSB, J W.P.No.10 of 2025 b) The dealer diverted 240 Kgs of fortified rice, 166.07 Kgs of jowar and 260 (½ Kg) packets of sugar into black market and indulged in clandestine business for the pecuniary gain of the petitioner and thus, the dealer contravened the Clause 21 (c) and (d) of the Order. c) The dealer was running F.P. shop without valid licence and violated Clause 8 (11) (c) of the Order. 3. On 22.11.2024, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation charge-wise. But, the 2nd respondent, without considering the same in proper perspective and / or affording an opportunity of hearing and due to political pressures, illegally and arbitrarily passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 in D.Dis.No. B2/1094/2024, cancelling the dealership and directing the 3rd respondent to make alternative arrangements for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. Initially, the petitioner was forced by the authorities to resign from the dealership to hand over the same to the persons of their choice and when the petitioner refused to do so, the petitioner was not entrusted with the commodities for the months of September and October 2024 by entrusting the supply to the cardholders by the Village Revenue Assistant on 25.08.2024. Therefore, if there were any alleged irregularities at the time of the inspection, it is not the petitioner, but the Village Revenue Assistant against whom the charges are to be levelled. This shows that, without any permission from the higher authorities, the stock was unauthorisedly shifted to Rythu Bharosa Kendram at the behest of the leader of the ruling party. Though the petitioner submitted a written objection on 30.10.2024 to the 2nd respondent to furnish a copy of the enquiry report on the diversion of the stock, keeping it in the Rythu Bharosa Kendram and un-officially distributing 4 BSB, J W.P.No.10 of 2025 the same to the cardholders, it was not furnished to the petitioner. The charge that the petitioner was running the shop without a valid licence is baseless as the commodities have been supplied to her for several years being an authorised dealer. Except the income from the dealership, there is no other source of income to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is filed. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record a copy of the written instructions to the Government Pleader from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurg vide RC. No. B2/1094/2024, dt. 24.01.2025 refuting the allegation by the petitioner as false and further stating that on 09.10.2024, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement officials and the revenue officials inspected the shop of the petitioner and found the following variation in the stock. Sl. No Name of the Commodity O.B. Stock received as per R.O. Total quantity Distribution (in Kgs) Balan ce as per online stock regist er Ground balance available Variation Qtls (-) (+) 1 Fortified Rice 1815 15225 17040 Kgs 12724 Kgs 431 6 4076 240 Kgs (-) 2 Jower 0 2775 2775 2145 630 796.07 166.0 7 (+) 3 Sugar (1/2 Kg) packets 195 828 1023 187 836 1096 (+)260 4 Red gram dal 7 0 7 0 7 7 0 5 Ragi 4 0 4 0 4 4 0 5 BSB, J W.P.No.10 of 2025 Hence, the entire available stock was seized under cover of Panchanama and handed over to the Deputy Tahsildar, Bommanhal. At the time of the inspection, the dealer was not available at the shop, but her husband was available there and cooperated in conducting Panchanama and inscribed his signature on the report of Panchanama. He stated that due to whitewash of their house in September, 2024, the F.P. shop was shifted to the Rythu Bharosa Kendram with the permission of the revenue officials. The Tahsildar, Bommanhal, reported that the dealer committed the irregularities as in the charges and recommended for taking disciplinary action against the dealer. Since variation in the stock upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration of transaction of one month as per Clause 29(a) of the Order, the dealership of the petitioner was cancelled as per Clause 21 C of the Order. The commodities for September and October, 2024 were allotted to the petitioner and for November, 2024, to the Village Revenue Assistant. The name of the petitioner was shown in the release orders upto June, 2024, but thereafter, the shop’s number has been shown. On 16.10.2024, the Tahsildar, Bommanhal sent proposals to the District Civil Supplies Officer, Anantapuramu, for mapping the name of the Village Revenue Assistant, Bommanhal as the dealer temporarily and accordingly, on 17.10.2024, mapping was carried out in the SCW website, however, the name of the Village Revenue Assistant has been wrongly shown for the entire year of 2024 in the website. 5. As such, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner does not have a case to grant the relief in this petition. 6 BSB, J W.P.No.10 of 2025 6. It is pertinent to refer paragraph 16 of the decision in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs. District Supply Officer1 which reads as follows: "16. 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." 1 2002(1) ALD 577 7 BSB, J W.P.No.10 of 2025 7. It is settled law that without following due procedure of suspending or cancelling the dealership after conducting enquiry, the action taken against the petitioner is unsustainable being ex-facie violation of the rules in the Order. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.09.05.2025 RAR