1 VS,J WP.No.34142 of 2025 APHC010658542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34142/2025 Between: 1. B THIRUPAL NAIK, S/O LATE B NARAYANA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC. F.P SHOP DEALER, R/O GURRAMBAILU, TANAKAL MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT PUTTAPARTHI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADIRI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TANAKALTOWN, KADIRI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE ASSISTANT, TANAKALTOWN, KADIRI, SRI SATYA SAI 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 2 VS,J WP.No.34142 of 2025 pleased topleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents No. 3 and 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No. 1241012 in Tanakal mandal,Sri Satya Sai district and in entrusting the distribution work to the 5th respondent without any order of termination or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No. 1241012 in Tanakal mandal,Sri Satya Sai district as usual 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 direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to obstruct releasing the essential commodities to F.P. Shop No. 1241012 in Tanakal mandal,Sri Satya Sai district, as usual till the petitioner’s appointment is terminated or cancelled, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J WP.No.34142 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents No. 3 and 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No. 1241012 in Tanakal mandal,Sri Satya Sai district and in entrusting the distribution work to the 5th respondent without any order of termination or cancellation and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No. 1241012 in Tanakal mandal,Sri Satya Sai district as usual and pass” 2. Originally, the father of the petitioner by name B. Narayana Naik was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1241012 of Thanda village, Tanakal mandal, Sri Satya Sai district and due to his demise on 15.07.2019, the 4th respondent appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of the subject shop in the year 2019 under compassionate grounds. Ever since, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaitn from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent along with few other staff, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 10.11.2025 and informed 4 VS,J WP.No.34142 of 2025 that they are preparing a panchanama, however, the copy of the same was not served on the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that without there being any order of suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, the distribution of essential commodities of the subject fair price shop was entrusted to the 5th respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Heard M/s. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a copy of the show cause notice dated 02.12.2025 whereby, a single charge was framed against the petitioner, seeking his explanation. He further submitted that the petitioner has submitted his explanation pursuant to the said show cause notice. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in not supplying essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop without there being any adverse order against him. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 02.12.2025, to which the petitioner is also said to have submitted his explanation. However, without there being any order of suspension or cancellation, the respondent authorities cannot stop supply of essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution of the same to the cardholders as 5 VS,J WP.No.34142 of 2025 the same is contrary to the law laid by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1 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 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 6 VS,J WP.No.34142 of 2025 7. In view of the same, the respondent authorities are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1241012 of Thanda village, Tanakal mandal, Sri Satya Sai district and to supply essential commodities to the same for distributing them to the cardholders, till any adverse action is taken against the petitioner. It is needless to state that the respondent authorities shall follow the procedure reiterated by this Court in the common order dated 19.11.2025 in W.P.No.24494 of 2025 and batch. 8. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:09.12.2025 Gss