APHC010027632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: G Narasamma The Government of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1867/2025 ...PETITIONER AND and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: [3311] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J W.P.No.1867 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate order or direction to respondents to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not initiating proceed (sic. proceedings ) for the alleged short fall of fortified rice of 250 kgs and excess of sugar of 48 kgs as per the panchanama, dated 06.01.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, improper and without any power or authority under law and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner has been running the fair price shop No.0811021 for the last three years without any complaint from any quarter. While so, on 06.01.2025 at about 2 PM, the respondents 5 and 6, i.e., the Enforcement Deputy Tahsilar, Podili, and the Food Inspector, Podili, inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner and found certain variations in the stock. The petitioner informed the respondent officials that the e-Pos machine is not functioning 3 BSB, J W.P.No.1867 of 2025 properly. Then, the respondent officials verified the records physically and found the following variations in the stock: Sl. No. O.B Received Total Issued Closing balance Present balance Variation 1.Fortified rice 2395 8792 11187 2969 8218 7968 250 kgs (-) 2. Sugar -- 576 576 200 376 424 (+) 48 Thereafter, a panchanama was prepared by recording the shortfalls in the stock and the signature of the petitioner was obtained on the panchanama. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was neither afforded an opportunity of hearing to put forth her case nor any notice was issued for conducting an enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995. According to the petitioner, without issuing notice and without conducting an enquiry, the respondent authorities are contemplating to cancel/suspend the authorization of the petitioner and handover the same to some third parties. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that so far the authorization of the petitioner is neither suspended nor cancelled and all the allegations made in the affidavit are baseless. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.1867 of 2025 6. In view thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-supply of commodities to the petitioner for distribution is not legal. 7. Considering the submissions, since so far, no action has been initiated against the petitioner herein to cancel/suspend the authorization/licence of the petitioner, abrupt stoppage of supply of essential commodities to the petitioner would not only hamper the right of the petitioner but also disturb the system as well causing hardship to the general public. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.4 and 5 to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner and allow the petitioner to continue as FPS dealer for which she has license, if she had complied other formalities in the regular course, until any action is taken against her in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from taking any action against the petitioner as per law, if there are any irregularities. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.27-01-2025 KLK