APHC010395902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19947/2025 Between: 1. VARASIDHI VINAYAKA MAHILA SAKTHI SANGHAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT.M.DEVI BRAHMARAMBA W/O LATE ADHI REDDY, AGE 37 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0434015, TOSSIPUDI VILLAGE, BICCAVOLU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM TOWN, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM TOWN, EAST GODAVARI DIST 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BICCAVOLU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 5. THE ASSISTANT GRAIN PURCHASING OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL AND MANDAL SUPPLY OFFICER, BICCAVOLU, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 6. KORIPURI GIRIJA BHAVANI, W/O VENKATA RAMANA, F P SHOP DEALER (0434015) AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O D NO 2-12 JANDA CENTRE, PANDALAPAKA, BICCAVOLU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R6 IS SUO- MOTO IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S 2 VS,J W.P.No.19947 of 2025 ORDER DT.23.09.2025 IN WA.NO.973 OF 2025. ...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 toit is prayed that this Honble 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 supplying the Essential Commodities to the petitioners shop for distribution to the card holders in respect of Shop No.0434015, Tossipudi Village, Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari District , without there being any order of suspension or cancellation and the proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent vide Ref.D/1158/2025 dt.25-7-2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings dt.25-7-2025 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and pass any other order this Honble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice. Prayer is amended as per the Court's Order dt.28.10.2025 in I.A.No.02 of 2025. 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 to Direct the respondents 3 & 4 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner9s FP shop i.e., No.0434015, Tossipudi Village, Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari Dist., by permitting to run the shop as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 & 4 in not supplying the Essential Commodities to the petitioner9s shop for distribution to the card holders in respect of Shop No.0434015, Tossipudi Village, Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari Dist., without there being any order of suspension or cancellation is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release Essential 3 VS,J W.P.No.19947 of 2025 Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and pass any other order this Hon9ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice. In the Place of Hence, it is prayed that this Hon9ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 & 4 in not supplying the Essential Commodities to the petitioner9s shop for distribution to the card holders in respect of Shop No.0434015, Tossipudi Village, Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari Dist., without there being any order of suspension or cancellation and the proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent vide Ref.D/1158/2025 dt:25-7-2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings dt:25-7-2025 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVAS 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.19947 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- <….to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not supplying the Essential Commodities to the petitioners shop for distribution to the card holders in respect of Shop No.0434015, Tossipudi Village, Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari District, without there being any order of suspension or cancellation and the proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent vide Ref.D/1158/2025 dt.25-7-2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings dt.25-7-2025 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner.….= 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner, being a member of 8Varasidhi Vinayaka Mahila Sakthi Sangham9 was appointed as a temporary dealer for Shop No.04341015, Tossipudi Village, Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari District by the 3rd respondent on 08.09.2022. The petitioner has been running the said shop without any complaint from any corner. b) While the things stood thus, on 10.06.2025 at about 12.30 p.m., the 5th respondent along with the ASO, Rajamahendravaram Town inspected the petitioner9s Fair Price Shop and found variation of 11 kgs of sugar in excess. During the said inspection, the petitioner has clearly stated that some of the 5 VS,J W.P.No.19947 of 2025 cardholders had given their thumb impressions on the e-Pos machine, but, however, due to their personal inconvenience, kept the sugar packets in the shop. Without considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the 5th respondent prepared a panchanama and submitted his report to the 4th respondent and on the same day, the available stock was handed over to the adjacent dealer, however, the petitioner was permitted to continue the distribution upto 25.06.2025. Basing on the inspection report, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on 17.07.2025. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that, without issuing any show- cause notice and without there being any order for suspension or cancellation, the 4th respondent stopped the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. d) As the grievance of the petitioner squarely falls under the purview of Full Bench judgment reported in 2002 (1) ALD 577 (Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others), the writ petition was disposed of on 04.08.2025 directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner, as the same was stopped without initiating any disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the 6th respondent filed Writ Appeal No.973 of 2025 contending that she has been appointed as temporary dealer for the subject fair price shop vide proceedings dated 25.07.2025 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajamahendravaram 6 VS,J W.P.No.19947 of 2025 and that without impleading her as a necessary party, the petitioner obtained the order dated 04.08.2025 in this writ petition. The said W.A.No.973 of 2025 was disposed of on 23.09.2025, setting aside the order dated 04.08.2025 and duly remanding the matter back for fresh consideration by impleading the 6th respondent suo-motu in the present writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has also sought amendment of the prayer, which was ordered. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and as well as the learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 4. On a perusal of the material papers filed by the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and without there being any suspension or cancellation order, the respondents cannot stop supply of essential commodities to the petitioner. Though the 6th respondent was appointed on 25.07.2025, it was only for a limited period of nine days; however, as the matter was remanded back to the Court in view of the fact that the writ petition was disposed of without impleading the 6th respondent, the issue is being reconsidered. The 3rd respondent, without initiating any disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner, cannot make alternative arrangements basing upon a panchanama conducted during the time of inspection vide proceedings dated 25.07.2025. 7 VS,J W.P.No.19947 of 2025 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings dated 25.07.2025 appointing the 6th respondent was already withdrawn by the 3rd respondent on 28.11.2025 itself. 6. In view of the same, the issue is squarely covered by 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. 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 8 VS,J W.P.No.19947 of 2025 7. In the light of the above settled legal position and in view of the admitted facts of the case, this Court is the opinion that, in the absence of any disciplinary action, suspension or cancellation of authorization, the respondents cannot stop supply of essential commodities to the petitioner9s Fair Price Shop. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner9s Fair Price Shop and to allow her to distribute the same to the cardholders until any disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 01.12.2025 KGR