APHC010577152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30167/2025 Between: 1. VADDE JAYA LAKSHMI @ O. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O V.GOVINDAPPA, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. TEMPORARY FP SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 1351008, R/O PATHIKONDA, PATHIKONDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.08.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATHIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, PATHIKONDA MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 toPleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or Direction declaring Jhe action on the part of Respondent No.4 in not supplying the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No. 1351008, during subsistence of her Permanent Fair Price Authorization for Shop No. 1351008, Pathikonda Village, Pathikonda Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to 2 supply the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No. 1351008, during subsistence of her Temporaiy Fair Price Authorization for Shop No. 1351008, Pathikonda Village, Pathikonda Mandal, Kumool 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 Respondent No.4 to supply the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No. 1351008, during subsistence of her Temporary Fair Price Authorization for Shop No. 1351008, Pathikonda Village, Pathikonda Mandal, Kurnool District and pass IA NO: 2 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 grant permission for amending the name portion of Cause Titles in Affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, Main Writ Petition, Interlocutory Application in WP.No.30167 of 2025 on the file of this Hon’ble Court for inserting Vadde Jaya Lakshmi @ O.Vijya Lakshmi by deleting wrongly mentioned Vadde Jaya Lakshmi Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or Direction declaring the action on the part of Respondent No.4 in not supplying the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No.1351008, during subsistence of her Permanent Fair Price Authorization for Shop No.1351008, Pathikonda Village, Pathikonda Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to supply the Commodities to Petitioner for distributing same to Card Holders of Shop No.1351008 during subsistence of her Temporary Fair Price Authorization for Shop No.1351008, Pathikonda Village, Pathikonda Mandal, Kurnool District and pass ...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer in the year 2005 in Shop No.1351008 of Pathikonda Village, Pathikonda Mandal, Kurnool District and her authorization has been extended from time to time. While the things stood thus, in the year 2024, after change of political scenario, due to political influence, there has been a spate of suspensions of fair price shop dealers in Kurnool District. In that process, from the month of September, 2024, the Officials of the 4th respondent stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner without there being any suspension or cancellation. When the petitioner contacted the officials of the 4th respondent, she was informed that the temporary license would be cancelled soon. Challenging the said action of the respondents in not supplying the essential 4 commodities to the petitioner since September, 2024, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a copy of instructions of the 4th respondent dated 05.12.2025, wherein it is stated that vide letter dated 28.03.2005 of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was directed to take over the stocks along with the e-PoS from Smt.O.Vijaya Lakshmi. In view of the same, no separate orders cancelling the dealership are necessary, since the petitioner’s appointment itself was on temporary basis. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and since then the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the subject card holders. However, it can be observed that as the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 2005 itself as a temporary dealer and the said authorization has been renewed from time to time, in such a case, the 3rd respondent cannot stop the supply of essential commodities merely on the ground that the petitioner’s appointment itself was on a temporary basis and that no cancellation orders are necessary. The moment, a temporary dealer is appointed, the dealer should be treated on par with a permanent dealer and if at all any violations are found or if the petitioner has contravened any of the conditions of the Control Order, it is for the respondents to issue show cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner. But instead of doing so, the respondents have straightaway cancelled the petitioner’s authorization and even otherwise, there are no proceedings cancelling the petitioner’s authorization also. 5 6. In view of the same, as the 3rd respondent has stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop without there being any suspension or cancellation, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of the Full Bench Judgment of the Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1. 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 – “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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 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.” 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 her to distribute the same to the card holders, allotted to her fair price shop, till her dealership is terminated or till passing an order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. 9. Accordingly, 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: 22.12.2025 SCS 7 271 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30167/2025 Date:- 22.12.2025 SCS