APHC010573232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29514/2025 Between: 1. B SOMESHAIAH, S/O. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1262017 R/O.P.BYADIGERA VILLAGE, AGALI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICTERSTWHILE 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. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. 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 2 VS,J W.P.No.29514 of 2025 pleased 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 P.Byadigera Village (Shop.No.1262017) of Agali Mandal, Sri Sathya 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 petitioners fair price shop at P.Byadigera Village (Shop.No.1262017) 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 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 P.Byadigera Village (Shop.No. 1262017) 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.29514 of 2025 The Court made the following 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 P.Byadigera Village (Shop.No.1262017) of Agali Mandal, Sri Sathya 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 P.Byadigera Village (Shop.No.1262017) 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 Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.1262017 of Agali Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District erstwhile Anantapur District, on temporary basis by the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 30.10.2004. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint whatsoever till date. 4 VS,J W.P.No.29514 of 2025 b) While the things stood thus, on 06.10.2025, the staff of the 5th respondent i.e., CSDT, VRO and others inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and found that there is a variation of (-)138 kgs of Rice (1.5%) and sugar (+) 3 (1/2 kg) packets and thereafter they seized the stock and handed over the same to the VRO along with Epos, weighing machine and a panchanama was conducted on the same day in the presence of the panchayatdars. However, thereafter neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation nor the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended. Without there being any suspension or cancellation, the respondents have stopped the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. 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 produced a copy of instructions of the Tahsildar (FAC), Agali Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District vide Rc.No.272/2025/CSDT dated 27.10.2025, wherein it is admitted with regard to the inspection over the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 06.10.2025 and also the variations as stated by the petitioner. However, it is stated that the essential commodities are distributed to the cardholders at the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop through the Village Revenue Officer of P.Byadigera Village, Agali Mandal to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders 5 VS,J W.P.No.29514 of 2025 and ensured uninterrupted distribution of essential commodities. It is further stated that the 5th respondent has submitted a report to the 3rd and 4th respondents vide Rc.No.272/2025/CST dated 06.10.2025 for taking action against the petitioner for the irregularities committed by the petitioner and the same is under process by the 3rd respondent. 5. In view of the same, it appears that without initiating any disciplinary proceedings either by suspending or cancelling the authorization, the respondents are distributing the essential commodities at the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop through the VRO of Byadigera Village, Agali Mandal to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders, which in fact is not contrary to the Control Order. Without initiating disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner, even if there are any variations in the stock, the respondents are not at liberty to make alternative arrangements either through a VRO or any other officer to supply essential commodities to the cardholders. 6. In this regard, the case of the petitioner squarely falls under the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others 1 , 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 VS,J W.P.No.29514 of 2025 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. 7. In the present case on hand, the respondents, without initiating disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, cannot stop the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary in view of law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since no disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner, the respondents are hereby directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and allow the petitioner to distribute them to the cardholders. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 VS,J W.P.No.29514 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 29.10.2025. KGR