4 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8890 OF 2025 Between: Y. Venkateswaramma, W/o. Chowdeswar Reddy, Aged about 35years, Occ Fair price shop dealer, R/o. H.No. Banganapalle Mandal, Nandyal 1-12-55, Bathulurupadu Village ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The Collector (OS), Nandyal District, Nandyal 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandyal District. 4. The Tahsildhar, Banganapalle Mandal, Nandyal District ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.D/CS/310/2025 may one dated 18.03.2025 in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop No. 1344021 of Bathulurupadu Village, Banganapalle Mandal, Nandyal District basing on the 6- A report issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary ■ and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent lA 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1330039 of Bethamcherla Village & Mandal, Nandyal District by suspending the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No. D/CS/310/2025, dated 18.03.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: Order APHC010173022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT1 (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8890/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Y. Venkateswaramma AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KNAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.D/CS/310/2025, dated 18.03.2025 in cancelling the • authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop No. 1344021 of Bathulurupadu Village, Banganapalle Mandal, Nandyal District basing on the 6- A report issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent and pass such ” 2 JS,J W.P.No.8890/2025 2. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No. 1344021 of Bathulurupadu Village, Nandyal District. A show cause notice was issued based on the panchanama conducted on 12.02.2025. The petitioner has submitted her explanation to the show cause notice on 25.03.2025. The respondents, without considering the explanation in its proper perspective and without conducting proper enquiry, have issued impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P.No.8515 of 2025 was withdrawn in view of the cancellation orders/proceedings and further submits that the respondent authorities cannot stop the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop without following due procedure contemplated under law and placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer\ wherein it was held as under: “15. It is one thing to say that when an order has been passed by the authority, the Court may pass an interim order staying the operation thereof as a result whereof the dealer may carry on business, but it is another thing to say that a deliberate action in not supplying the essential commodities to an authorised dealer even though his authorisation or licence has not been suspended, should be allowed by this Court by refusing to grant a writ although in law he is entitled to. 2002 (1) ALD 577 3 JS,J 9^ W.P.No.8890/2025 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.” Though the impugned proceedings of cancellation and show 4. cause notice were issued on 18.03.2025, the copy of the cancellation proceedings were not served to the petitioner. Since the authorization of the petitioner is cancelled without conducting proper enquiry, the petitioner is entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer as usual so long as such authorization is in force. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing 5. the respondent authorities to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No. 1344021. However, it is open to the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry against the petitioner in 4 JS,J W,P.No.8890/2025 accordance with law and take steps accordingly, with regard to’ continuation of Dealership of petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Princ^al Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh Consumer Affair*? Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District ^ 2. The Collector(CS), Nandyal District, Nandyal 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandyal District. 4. The Tahsildhar, Banganapalle Mandal, Nandyal District 5. One CC to SRI K NAGA PFIANINDRA Advocate [OPUC] [OUT?^^ SUPPLIES, High Court of Andhra 7. Three CD Copies Pradesh gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 04/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.8890 of 2025 f* 13 MAY 2025 ^ . Current Seciion *9. DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS