APHC010519652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26955/2025 Between: 1. P CHANDRAKALA, W/O VENUGOPAL REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER FOR F.P.SHOP NO. 1229014, SRI SAI SANKARA MAHILA SANGAM (SHG), ACHUTAPURAM VILLAGE, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM 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, CUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU 3. THE TAHSILDAR, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT 4. THE JOINT COLLECTO, ANANTHAPURAMU ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in 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 VS,J W.P No.26955 of 2025 2 Respondents to continue to supply essential commodities to the petitioner regularly and allow her to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1229014, Achutapuram Village, Yellanur 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 as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1229014 of Achutapuram Village, Yellanur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner, pending disposal o f 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.26955 of 2025 3 The Court made the following 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in 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 her to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1229014, Achutapuram Village, Yellanur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and pass such other order or further orders…” 2. The petitioner is a member of Sri Sai Sankara Mahila Sangham and authorized dealer of fair price shop bearing No.1229014 of Achutapuram Village, Yellanur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District having been appointed vide Authorization in proceedings No. D.Dis.No.K/6/2499/2019 dated 03.09.2019. The petitioner has been running the said fair price shop since her date of appointment without any complaints from any corner. 3. While the matter being so, on 04.09.2025, the respondent No.3 along with Village Revenue Officer inspected the shop and seized the physical stock without any weighment, stating that the petitioner was not present at the shop on the said date of inspection. Thereafter, a panchanama dated 06.09.2025 was prepared, and the said copy of the panchanama was served to the petitioner on 08.09.2025, for which the petitioner filed objections. Thereafter, without issuing any suspension or cancellation to her authorization, the respondents have stopped supply of the essential commodities to the petitioner. The petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. 4. Today when the matter came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished a copy of the instructions of the Tahsildar vide Rc.No.176/2025(CS) dated 25.09.2025 wherein it is admitted that on receipt of the credible information from the Revenue Vigilance Officer, VS,J W.P No.26955 of 2025 4 Ananthapuramu District on 04.09.2025 at about 10:30 AM, the officers of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement, Ananthapuramu along with Revenue officials have inspected the petitioner’s shop and found that the petitioner was not available in the shop and when contacted over phone, her husband i.e., P.Venugopal Reddy has responded and informed that the petitioner went to Tadipatri due to ill health for health checkup and further when contacted the petitioner over phone, she has not responded and thereafter, the respondents have seized the petitioner’s fair price shop and handed over the same to one C.Dileep Kumar, for further necessary action. 5. Except stating so, nowhere in the instructions it is mentioned that a show cause notice was issued in pursuance of the inspection conducted on 04.09.2025. 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 others1, 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.” 6. In the present case on hand, the respondents without issuing any show- cause notice or without initiating disciplinary proceedings, if any, in accordance with law, cannot stop the supply of essential commodities to the 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 VS,J W.P No.26955 of 2025 5 petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary in view of law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment. 7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since no disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner, the respondents are hereby directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop and allow the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders as dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1229014, Achutapuram Village, Yellanur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:26.09.2025. Ksj