APHC010038792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2349/2025 Between: Mitta Sarada ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JITHENDRA P Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order to declare the action of the respondents 3 to 7 in not releasing the essential commodities without considering the explanation dated 13.12.2024 made by the petitioner and not allowing the petitioner to run her F.P. Shop No.1134016, 2 W.P. No.2349 of 2025 R/o.Tallapalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, in spite of the subsisting petitioner’s appointment is illegal and arbitrary, violative of principles of natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently direct the respondents no.3 to 7 to supply the commodities continuously by continuing the petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer of 1134016, R/o.Tallapalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa …” 02. The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer vide LR-FP011600052328, dated 26.04.2016, of the fair price shop No.1134016, Tallapalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there being any cancellation/ suspension of the dealership of the petitioner, the respondent authorities are not supplying commodities to the petitioner. He further submitted that the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner should not be stopped without following due process of law and placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer1, 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 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 3 W.P. No.2349 of 2025 by this Court by refusing to grant a writ although in law he is entitled to. 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.” 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions issued by the 4th respondent vide Ref .No. 4 W.P. No.2349 of 2025 B/141/2025, dated 12.02.2025 and further submitted the petitioner’s explanation dated 13.12.2024 was pending for enquiry. 05. Since the appointment of the petitioner has not been cancelled or suspended by following any due procedure of law by conducting any enquiry, the petitioner is entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer as usual so long as such appointment is in force. 06. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the respondent authorities are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner on his complying the requirements for such supply, so long as his appointment is in force. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 19.02.2025 SCH 5 W.P. No.2349 of 2025 509 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2349/2025 Date: 19.02.2025 SCH