APHC010556282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28785/2025 Between: 1. J YERRI SWAMY, S/O J.KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1201031, KUDLURU VILLAGE, D.HIREHAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANDURG ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICTDIVISION, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, D.FLIREHAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT 5. THEDEPUTY TAHSILDAR, D.HIREHAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU 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 or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in VS,J W.P No.28785 of 2025 2 seeking to restrain the petitioner from functioning as Fair Price Shop Dealer, in the absence of passing any order either suspending or cancelling the dealership of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the Respondents to continue to supply essential commodities to the petitioner regularly and allow him to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1201031, Kadluru Village, D.Hirehal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and pass 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 issue interim directions to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function s Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1201031, Kadluru Village, D.Hirehal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner, pending disposal of W.P.No. of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P No.28785 of 2025 3 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not allotting the commodities to me inspite of the lapses of validity of suspension ordered vide proceedings, dated 12.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018, and contrary to well-established legal principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue me as the fair price shop dealer and allot commodities for distribution and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that: a) The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for the shop bearing No.1201031 vide D.Dis No.2412/2008/F dated 11.12.2008. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner was running the said shop without any complaints from any corner and his authorization has been extended from time to time. b) While the matter being so, due to political pressure and in view of the change in Government, the authorities are seeking termination of dealership of the petitioner on one ground or the other without following due process of law. In light of the above, the respondents have inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner on 09.10.2025 but they have not found any variations. The petitioner have completed distribution of the essential commodities for the month of October, 2025 and when the petitioner approached the respondent No.4 along with Demand Draft for supply of essential commodities for the VS,J W.P No.28785 of 2025 4 month of November, 2025, the respondents refused the receive the same and on the other hand, directed the petitioner to tender his resignation and he was also orally informed that no stock will be supplied to him further. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that neither being any allegations against the petitioner nor suspending or cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, respondents have stopped the supply of the essential commodities. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. 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 other1 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 allow the petitioner to run his fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the card holders. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the action of the respondents in all aspects, but, no order terminating the dealership or suspending or cancelling the authorization is placed on record to deny supply of essential commodities. 12002 (1) ALD 577 VS,J W.P No.28785 of 2025 5 6. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others), wherein it was categorically 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. 7. 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 the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner by allowing him to distribute the same to the card holders, allotted to his fair price shop, till his VS,J W.P No.28785 of 2025 6 dealership is terminated or till passing an order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 17.10.2025 Ksj