APHC010583852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30389/2025 Between: 1. H KANTHARAJU, S/O. M. HANUMANTHA RAYA. FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1262009, R/O.D.NO.4-71, NARASAMBUDI VILLAGE, AGALI 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 SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, AGALI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 2 VS,J W.P.No.30389 of 2025 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 Narasambudi Village (Shop.No.1262009) of Agali Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any 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 petitioners fair price shop at Narasambudi Village (Shop.No. 1262009) of Agali Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District 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 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 Narasambudi Village (Shop.No. 1262009) of Agali Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District, pending disposal of Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.30389 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be 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 Narasambudi Village (Shop.No.1262009) of Agali Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any though the petitioner authorization is valid and subsisting as 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 Narasambudi Village (Shop.No. 1262009) of Agali Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District ….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1262009, Agali Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District vide proceedings of the 4th respondent on 12.04.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint whatsoever from any corner. 4 VS,J W.P.No.30389 of 2025 b) While the things stood thus, on 07.10.2025, at about 12.00 p.m., the staff of 5th respondent i.e., CSDT and others inspected the petitioner’s shop and having identified certain variations in the stock available in the petitioner’s shop, submitted a report to the 5th respondent. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that, thereafter, without there being any suspension or cancellation, the respondents have stopped supplying of essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of instructions of the 4th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda vide Rc.No.2772/2025/C, dated 31.10.2025, wherein the facts stated by the petitioner are admitted and it is further stated that the 5th respondent has already submitted a report to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide Rc.No.278/2025/CSDT dated 07.10.2025 recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner for the irregularities committed by the petitioner and the matter is under process before the 4th respondent. 5. The said instructions would establish the fact that, as on today, neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled, and it is an admitted fact that subsisting the authorization, the respondents cannot stop supplying of essential commodities 5 VS,J W.P.No.30389 of 2025 to the petitioner, as held 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. 6. In the light of the above legal position and 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 petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 VS,J W.P.No.30389 of 2025 7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and allow him to distribute the same to the cardholders, until any disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is 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 : 06.11.2025. KGR