APHC010081742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4466/2025 Between: Palleboyina Naga Sudha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PANGA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 JS,J W.P.No.4466/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not supplying the commodities for distribution through petitioner fair price shop authorization No.0721040, Palukur Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, as illegal, irregular and consequently direct the Respondents to continue to supply essential commodities for distribution through petitioner dealership Shop No.0721040 and to pass……” 2. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.0721040. The 4th respondent booked a case under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner, and on 29.07.2024, the respondent authorities issued proceedings alleging that there was variation in the stock. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent has issued show cause notice on 21.10.2024, for which the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 14.01.2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there being any cancellation/suspension of the dealership of the petitioner, the respondent authorities are not supplying commodities to the petitioner. He further submitted that the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner should not be stopped without following due process of law and placed reliance on the decision of 3 JS,J W.P.No.4466/2025 this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer 1, wherein it was held as under: “15. It is one thing to say that when an order has been passed by the authority, the Court may pass an interim order staying the operation thereof as a result whereof the dealer may carry on business, but it is another thing to say that a deliberate action in not supplying the essential commodities to an authorised dealer even though his authorisation or licence has not been suspended, should be allowed by this Court by refusing to grant a writ although in law he is entitled to. 16. 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 4 JS,J W.P.No.4466/2025 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted the petitioner’s explanation dated 14.01.2025 was pending for consideration. 5. Since the authorization of the petitioner has not been cancelled or suspended by following any due procedure of law by conducting any enquiry, the petitioner is entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer as usual so long as such authorization is in force. 6. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0721040. However, it is open to the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry against the petitioner according to the law and take steps accordingly, with regard to continuation of petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Dealership. Till then, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 21.03.2025 Sj 5 JS,J W.P.No.4466/2025 102 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4466/2025 Date:21.03.2025 sj