APHC010567952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NOs: 29598 and 7933 of 2025 Between: 1. MADDIREVULA OBUL SUBBA REDDY, S/O. OBUL SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC.DEALER OF THE FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1136026, 2/63, REDDYVARIPALLI, LAKKIREDDIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LAKKIREDDIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, LAKKIREDDY PALLI MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more p articularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not allotting the commodities for distribution for the card olders without there being suspension or cancellation as arbitrary and illegal, contrary obj ectives of the p revisions of the Andhra Pradesh State T argeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative ofthe fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 3 00 -A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to supply the commodities to me and drop all further proceedings and direct the respondents to pay costs to me and p ass 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 me as the fair price shop dealer and consequently release the commodities in my favor for distribution to the card holders with immediate effect, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 7933/2025 Between: 1. MADDIREVULA OBUL SUBBA REDDY, S/O. OBUL SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC.DEALER OF THE FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1136026, 2/63, REDDYVARIPALLI, LAKKIREDDIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LAKKIREDDIPALLI MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , LAKKIREDDY PALLI MANDAL Y.S.R 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 toleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not allotting the commodities for distribution for the card holders as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed 4 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to supply the commodities to me pending subsistence of the authorization the same 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 direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer and consequently release the commodities in his favor for distribution to the card holders with immediate effect as there are no disciplinary proceedings are pending against me, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 5 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER : These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: W.P.No.29598 of 2025 “....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not allotting the commodities for distribution for the card holders without there being suspension or cancellation as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to supply the commodities to me and drop all further proceedings and direct the respondents to pay costs to me...” W.P.No.7933 of 2025 “....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not allotting the commodities for distribution for the card holders as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart 6 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to supply the commodities to me pending subsistence of the authorization the same...” Since the petitioner in both writ petitions is one and the same, and the cause raised in both writ petitions is with regard to the same Fair Price Shop, these two writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that:- a. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop no.1136026 situated at Reddivaripalli Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, Annamayya District in the year 2006. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from any corner. b. However, the respondents did not allot the commodities to the petitioner from the month of February, 2025 onwards, without there being any complaints against the petitioner and any inspection over the subject shop. As a result, 7 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition No.7933 of 2025 and when the matter came up for admission on 27.03.2025, this Court passed the following interim order:- “In view of the same, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to release the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No.1136026 and the petitioner is directed to pay the amount to the same.” 3. While so, on 08.09.2025, an inspection was conducted and it was alleged that there was a variation of 1 packet of sugar as against the physical stock of sugar, at the time of inspection. A panchanama was accordingly conducted, and the e-POS machine and remaining shop commodities were seized. Thereafter, 6A proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. Based on the said report of the Tahsildar dated 09.09.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation within a period of seven (7) days from the date of the said notice for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 19.09.2025 and thereafter no action has been initiating by the respondents. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, though no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated 8 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 against the petitioner, the respondents have stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. When the writ petition came up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader have furnished a copy of written instructions of the 3rd respondent dated 30.10.2025, wherein the facts as stated by the petitioner are being admitted but however, no where it is mentioned as to whether any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated as against the petitioner in pursuance of his explanation dated 19.09.2025 either by suspending or cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. In view of the fact that the respondents cannot stop supply of essential commodities without there being any suspension or cancellation, the petitioner’s case is involved by the full bench judgment of this Court. 7. 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 – 9 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 “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.” 10 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :05.11.2025 LSP 11 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 255 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NOs: 29598 and 7933 of 2025 12 VS,J W.P.NOS.7933 & 29598 OF 2025 Date :05.11.2025 LSP