APHC010504882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26219/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK NAGOOR VALI, S/O SK. RASOOL BASHA AGE 35 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0833039, PAPAYAPALLI VILLAGE BESTAVARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CS) PRAKASAM DIST., AT ONGOLE. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR DIVISION, PRAKASAM DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BESTAVARIPETA MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No.0833039, Papayapalli Village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam Dist., without any order of suspension or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2 respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…declaring the action of the respondents 3 & 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No.0833039, Papayapalli Village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District, without any order of suspension or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and pass any other order…” 2. (a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer of FP Shop No.0833039, Papayapalli Village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, PRakasam District and he has been supplying the essential commodities as the Fair Price shop dealer to the car-holders without any complaint either from the card-holders or from the respondent authorities since his date of appointment. (b) While so, the petitioner’s shop was inspected by the Food Inspector, Giddalur on 01.08.2025, alleging certain variations in the shop have seized the stock available in the FP shop and handed over the stock to the Village Revenue Officer. (c) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, without issuing any show cause notice seeking explanation as to why the authorization should not be suspended or cancelled, the respondent authorities, straightaway suspended the petitioner’s authorization and not allowed the petitioner to run the shop and have not released the essential commodities. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.08.2025 to 4 the Tahsildar, Bestavaripeta seeking to furnish the seizure report. But the respondent authorities without supplying any seizure report and without issuing any show-cause notice, not allowing the petitioner to run the FP shop and have not released the essential commodities. 3. Today, when the matter came up for admission, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished copy of the instructions of the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector, Markapur vide Rc.C/541/2025, dated 24.09.2025 wherein it was stated that the Food Inspector, Giddalur on credible information inspected the FP shop of the petitioner and noticed 150 Kgs excess of fortified rice in the FP shop and the reply given by the petitioner is not convincing as such, he booked a case under cover of Panchanama and filed the case before the Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole under Section 6A of EC Act, 1955 recommending to initiate disciplinary action against the delinquent FP shop dealer. The instructions further disclose that no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner due to some unavoidable administrative delay. It further discloses that as on today, no disciplinary action has been initiated in pursuance of the inspection conducted over the petitioner’s FP shop. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appeared for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions, placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench reported in Oleti Tirupathamma v. 5 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 allow the petitioner to run his fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the cardholders. 6. 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 license. As already noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the relevant orders have power to suspend the authorization or license 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 upon application of mind come to the conclusion that the irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant suspension of his license, 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 license 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 same to the card holders, allotted to his fair price shop, till his dealership is terminated or till passing an order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.09.2025 KA 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26219 of 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 KA