APHC010621372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32159/2025 Between: 1. SMT. SHAILAJA,, W/O. RANGASWAMI, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO.1261003 R/O. D.NO.4-149, VIRUPASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 5. THE TAHSILDAR, AMARAPURAMU MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...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 toPleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in not allotting the essential commodities to the F.P shops held by the petitioner at Virupasamudram Village (Shop.No.1261003) of Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any reason though the petitioner authorization is valid and subsisting is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and principles of natural justice and contrary to reported judgment in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs District Suppliers reported in 2002(1) ALD page 577 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop at Virupasamudram Village (Shop.No. 1261003) of Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop at Virupasamudram Village (Shop.No.1261003) of Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District, pending disposal of Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in not allotting the essential commodities to the F.P shops held by the petitioner at Virupasamudram Village (Shop.No.1261003) of Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any reason though the petitioner authorization is valid and subsisting is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and principles of natural justice and contrary to reported judgment in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs District Suppliers reported in 2002(1) ALD page 577 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop at Virupasamudram Village (Shop.No.1261003) of Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District..” 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that:- a. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for shop No.1261003 situated at Virupasamudram Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District (Erstwhile Anantapur District) by the 4th respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.344/2021/C, dated 03.02.2021. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 b. While things stood thus, as the respondents stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner in the month of August, 2024, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition No.16343 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 29.07.2024 directing respondent Nos.3 & 4 to supply essential commodities to the petitioner and to allow her to continue as fair price shop dealer, for which she holds a valid license, if she complies with other formalities in the regular course, until any action is taken against her without violating law and principles of natural justice. Thereafter, once again the respondents stopped supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner. The petitioner was once again constrained to file a writ petition No.27349 of 2024 placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer reported in 2002 (1) ALD 577. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 25.11.2024, as under:- “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the respondent authorities are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner on complying the requirements for such supply, until the appointment is suspended or terminated by following due procedure of law.” c. Thereafter, it appears that basing on the report dated 16.11.2024 submitted by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent 6 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 issued a show cause notice dated 25.01.2025 to the petitioner, calling for an explanation for which the petitioner has submitted an explanation dated 31.01.2025. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, even without giving reasonable opportunity, straight away terminated the petitioner’s dealership vide proceedings dated 28.02.2025 without conducting any enquiry as required under Control Order, 2018. The petitioner was once again constrained to file Writ Petition No.5828 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 28.02.2025 with a direction to the respondents to follow the due procedure by giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a reasonable order as contemplated under law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, in pursuance of the direction of this Court in W.P.No.5828 of 2025 dated 28.02.2025 instead of conducting an enquiry, the respondent-authorities have once again inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 05.11.2025 at about 2:00 p.m. and allegedly 7 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 found a variation of 53.36 kgs of fortified rice. A panchanama was prepared in the presence of mediators, and the available stock was seized and sent to the nearest MLS point. The said panchanama is challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner’s shop is being frequently inspected at the instance of local political leaders who are hatching a plan to terminate her authorisation on one pretext or another to facilitate their own persons. 3. On a perusal of the panchanama, it can be observed that except the variation of 53.36 kgs of fortified rice, no other variation was found in any other commodity. As pointed out by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner’s shop has been frequently inspected by the respondents, and because of this the petitioner has been compelled to approach this court on multiple occasions since 2024 by way of W.P.Nos.16343 of 2024, 27349 of 2024, 5828 of 2025 and 29514 of 2025. The said act of the respondents clearly establishes that the respondents without there being any reasons are inspecting the petitioner’s fair price shop and preparing panchanamas alleging variations. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 19.11.2025, the 5th respondent appeared before this Court and has stated that the 8 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 inspection was conducted by the vigilance Department and they have no way concerned with the said inspection. However, from the panchanama, it can be observed that the inspection was conducted by the officers in the presence of the 5th respondent VRA/VRO, and as such, their claim of having no knowledge appears untenable. Further, no disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner by issuing show cause notice, suspending or cancelling her authorization. Therefore, the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner. 4. 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 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 9 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 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.” 5. 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 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. There shall be a further direction to the 4th respondent 10 VS,J W.P.NO.32159 OF 2025 to conduct an enquiry with respect to the frequent inspections being conducted on the petitioner’s fair price shop No.1261003 situated at Virupasamudram Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date 24.11.2025 LSP