APHC010186802020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 11968/2020 Between: 1. G MANOHAR, S/O G.VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10/9, MOTUKUPALLI VILLAGE, KADIRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KADIRI MANDAL, KADIRI, ANANTHAPURAMU 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P.Shop No.1244043 of Motukupalli village, Kadiri Mandal as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P.Shop No.1244043 of Motukupalli village, Kadiri Mandal, and pass 2 VS,J W.P.No.11968 of 2020 IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 2 and 3 to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P.Shop No.1244043 of Motukupalli village, Kadiri Mandal, pending disposal of the above Writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.11968 of 2020 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of 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 respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P.Shop No.1244043 of Motukupalli village, Kadiri Mandal as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P.Shop No.1244043 of Motukupalli village, Kadiri Mandal.…” 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.1244043 of Motukupalli Village by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, vide proceedings in Rc.No.61/2015/B, dated 19.02.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner’s authorization was extended from time to time and was valid up to 31.03.2020. b) While the matter being so, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department along with the Mandal Revenue Officers of Ananthapuramu District inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 06.07.2020 and found certain variations in the ground balance and the balance as per e-POS machine. The stock was seized under the cover of panchanama. c) As the 2nd respondent has stopped the essential commodities to the petitioner without issuance of a show-cause notice or suspension or 4 VS,J W.P.No.11968 of 2020 cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 22.07.2020, this Court passed the following interim order: “…..there shall be interim direction as prayed for, if the authorization of the petitioner is subsisting as on today. However, pendency of the writ petition and the subsistence of the interim order, will not come in the way of the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of instructions of the Tahsildar, Kadiri Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District in Rc.No.252/2020, dated 06.10.2025, duly enclosing a copy of the petitioner’s authorization dated 05.03.2024 to prove that the petitioner‘s authorization has been continued in pursuance of the interim order of this Court and also that it has been extended from time to time. On the other hand, but, however, nowhere in the instructions it has been stated as to whether any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated as against the petitioner in pursuance of the inspection conducted over the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 06.07.2020. 5 VS,J W.P.No.11968 of 2020 6. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner is squarely falls under the frame work of 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. 7. In the present case on hand, the respondents without initiating disciplinary proceedings, if any, in accordance with law, cannot stop the 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 VS,J W.P.No.11968 of 2020 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 the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop and allow the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders as dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1244043 of Motukupalli Village until any disciplinary action has been initiated as against the petitioner. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.10.2025 KGR