APHC010613542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31665/2025 Between: 1. SMT.A.VIJAYA JYOTHI, W/O MANIKYALA RAO AGE 46 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0626028, OGIRALA VILLAGE BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, KRISHNA DIST., AT MACHILIPATNAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUDIVADA DIVISION, KRISHNA DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST. ...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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the seizer panchanamas conducted by the 5th respondent on 5-11- 2025 in respect of FP Shop NO.0626028 and on 5-11-2025 in respect another FP Shop No.0626015 (I/c) located at Ogirala and Kanumolu Village 2 of Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna Dist., and not allowing the petitioner to run FP Shops without there being any order of suspension or cancellation and without following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Judgment passed by the Full Bench in 2002 (1) ALD 577 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the panchanamas dt 5-ll-2025 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual 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 Stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Seizer Panchanamas conducted by the 5th respondent on 5-11-2025 by allowing the petitioner to run the shops i.e., FP Shop NO.0626028 & No.0626015 located at Bapulapadu Mandal of Krishna Dist., as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.31665 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 a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the seizer panchanamas conducted by the 5th respondent on 5-11-2025 in respect of FP Shop NO.0626028 and on 5-11-2025 in respect another FP Shop No.0626015 (I/c) located at Ogirala and Kanumolu Village of Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna Dist., and not allowing the petitioner to run FP Shops without there being any order of suspension or cancellation and without following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Judgment passed by the Full Bench in 2002 (1) ALD 577 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the panchanamas dt 5-ll-2025 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for FP Shop No.0626028 located at Ogirala, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, and was also appointed as in charge of the FP Shop No.0626015 of Kanumolu Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District due to the resignation of the earlier dealer. 3. While the things stood thus, on 31.10.2025, the authorities intercepted an auto at Arugolanu Center and found illegal transportation of PDS rice. Basing on the confession statement given by the auto driver, the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Gannavaram, and the 5th respondent inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0626028 and found no variation on the ground position. However, once again 4 on 05.11.2025, the 5th respondent along with the Village Revenue Officer, Origala, inspected the petitioner’s shop and verified the stock compared with the e-pos device and found less stock in fortified rice of 22.56 Kgs and prepared a Panchanama in the presence of the mediators. On the same day, at about 4.30 pm, the 5th respondent along with the Village Revenue Officer, Kanumolu Village, inspected the petitioner’s in-charge shop No.0626015 and found a variation of PDS rice of 35 Kgs less and an excess of ½ kg sugar and prepared panchanama in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, they seized the stock and handed over the e-pos device, weighing machine, and available stock to the VRO for safe custody. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though the variations in both the shops are within permissible limits as per Clause 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, without any show-cause notice for suspension or passing cancellation order, the authorities have stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s both shops. 5. Heard Sri. M.M.M.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions, placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench reported in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1 in support of his contention. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court to direct the respondents to 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 5 allow the petitioner to run her fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the card holders. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of instructions of the 3rd respondent wherein the facts as stated by the petitioner are reiterated but however it is admitted that as on today no disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner but however a report has been received from the Special Deputy Tahsildhar, Gannavaram and a show-cause notice will be issued basing on the said report in due course of time. 8. 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 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 the Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid judgment and also considering the fact that as on today no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner either by suspending or cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the 6 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 shops, 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 :17.11.2025 MH/JAK 7 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 03 WRIT PETITION No.31665 of 2025 Date :17.11.2025 MH/JAK