APHC010038812025 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: 2110/2025 Between: Smt Yarramreddy Ramanjinamma ...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 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 2 to 6 in not releasing the essential commodities without considering the explanation dated 19.12.2024 made by the petitioner and not allowing the petitioner to run her F.P. Shop No.1135003, R/o.Vemula Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, in spite of subsisting the 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 2 W.P. No.2110 of 2025 Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently direct the respondents no.2 to 6 to supply the commodities continuously by continuing the petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer of 1135003, R/o.Vemula Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa and to pass…” 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer vide Ref. B/1251/2007, dated 18.06.2008, of the fair price shop No.1135003, Vemula Village and Mandal, Kadapa District. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the explanation given by the petitioner about the alleged variation in the stock, without properly appreciating the same, the impugned order was passed and the petitioner is put to loss and hardship. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions vide Ref No.B/100/2024, dated 02.02.2025 and submitted that there was variation of the stock far above the permissible limit in all items as shown below: Sl.No. Name of the Commodi ty Opening Balance (Kgs)/Pkts Receipts (Kgs)/Pkts Total (Kgs)/Pkts Distribution of stock (Kgs)/Pkts To be available stock (Kgs)/Pkts Present Physical Stock (Kgs)/Pkts Variation (Kgs)/Pkt s 1 Jowar 0 300 300 297 3 134 (+) 131 2 Red Dal 0 321 321 177 144 161 (+) 17 3 Rice 535 8580 9115 2438 6677 7086 (+) 409 4 Sugar 0 576 576 186 390 374 (-) 16 05. Perused the record. 06. In view of the prima-facie case against the petitioner showing the variation in the stock above the permissible limit, it may call for enquiry as per law. 3 W.P. No.2110 of 2025 07. It is pertinent to mention here 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 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 4 W.P. No.2110 of 2025 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.” 08. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the respondent authorities are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner on her complying the requirements for such supply, so long as her 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.2110 of 2025 468 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2110/2025 Date: 19.02.2025 SCH