Smt., Nagabattula Vijaya Shanthi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/29324/2025 · 2025-11-02
V Sujatha
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41056 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41056 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010566862025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29324/2025 Between:
1. SMT., NAGABATTULA VIJAYA SHANTHI,, W/O DAVID RAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC F.P SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0441004, R/O. 9-107,
AMBEDKAR STREET, VALLURU VILLAGE, KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES
DEPARTMENT AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMALAPURAM.
3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMALAPURAM.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.
2
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025
5. THE TAHSILDAR, KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA 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 topleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Proceedings Vide Ref. B4/967/2025, dated 17.10.2025, suspending the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop for the Shop No. .0441004, Valluru Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, as illegal and arbitrary, violation of principles of natural Justice and contrary to the Provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, by setting-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents nos. 2 to 5 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the Shop No. 0441004, alluru Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District 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 to direct the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s F.P. Shop No. 0441004, Valluru
Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, by continuing the Petitioner’s F.P. Shop authorization, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAJU GUBBALA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
3
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025
1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:
4
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025
ORDER:-
This writ petition is 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 to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Proceedings Vide Ref. B4/967/2025, dated 17.10.2025, suspending the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop for the Shop No.0441004, Valluru Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, as illegal and arbitrary, violation of principles of natural Justice and contrary to the Provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, by setting-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents nos. 2 to 5 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the Shop No. 0441004, Alluru Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District...”
2.
Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that:-
a. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0441004 situated at Valluru Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District in the year 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. Recently, in the month of June 2025, the petitioner paid the challan for renewal of his authorization, and it is valid up to 31.03.2027. 5
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025
b. While things stood thus, due to a change in political scenario, on 12.06.2025, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, conducted an inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop and alleged that there was variation in the stocks. Thereafter, even without conducting any panchanama and without furnishing a copy of the panchanama to the petitioner and based solely on the report submitted by the Tahsildar under Section 6-a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for Short
“the Act”), the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.06.2025 to the petitioner calling for an explanation within two days as to why the petitioner’s authorization shall not be cancelled. Challenging the said show cause notice dated 13.06.2025, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.18379 of 2025. Duly considering that the basis for issuance of show cause notice was the 6-A report submitted by the Tahsildar without any separate report for initiating disciplinary proceedings, the writ petition was allowed on 21.07.2025 by setting aside the suspension order dated 23.06.2025 and further liberty was given to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner, if they intend to do so, in accordance with law. 6
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 21.07.2025, the 5th respondent once again submitted a report on 26.09.2025 based upon the same inspection conducted on
12.06.2025. Basing on the said report, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice on 03.10.2025, to which the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 09.10.2025. Thereafter, vide impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2025, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended without assigning any reasons for dissatisfaction with the explanation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5.
On perusal of the material documents filed by the petitioner, it can be observed that the petitioner had initially filed Writ Petition No. 18379 of 2025 challenging the show cause notice issued by the 4th respondent on 13.06.2025 basing on the 6-A report submitted by the 5th respondent. The said writ petition was allowed, duly setting aside the show cause notice and granting liberty to the respondents to initiate action in accordance with law. Subsequently, based on the same inspection conducted
7
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025 on 12.06.2025, the Tahsildar once again submitted a report on 26.09.2025 to the 4th respondent. Based on that report, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice on 03.10.2025 calling for an explanation, for which the petitioner admittedly submitted an explanation on 09.10.2025. Thereafter, the 4th respondent passed the following order:
“In view of the 6A case pendency in the Court of District Collector (Civil Supply), Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. The orders are hereby passed suspending the authorization of the petitioner till finalization of the 6A case.”
6. The said observation made by the 4th respondent is totally contrary to the Control Order 2018. The proceedings under Section 6-A and disciplinary proceedings are totally independent, and pendency of a 6A case has no connection with the disciplinary proceedings and is in no way a ground to initiate punitive action against the petitioner. 7. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the 4th respondent could not have suspended the petitioner’s authorization merely because a 6A case is pending before the District Collector(CS). Instead of doing so, the 4th respondent ought to have considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and ought to have passed a reasoned and speaking
8
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025
order. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 17.10.2025 are liable to be set-aside, and respondents are
directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :03.11.2025 LSP
9
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025
186
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 29324/2025
Date :03.11.2025
10
VS,J
W.P.NO.29324 OF 2025 LSP