APHC010093472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Sareddy Ramana Reddy The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4829/2025 Sareddy Ramana Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: [3311] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J W.P.No.4829 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No.0815020 situated at chintalapalem village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District without there being any suspension or cancellation of appointment is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No.0815020 situated at Chintalapalem village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District by enabling him to supply to the cardholders and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is a dealer of fair price shop bearing No.0815020 situated at Chintalapalem village, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District. On 12.02.2025, the officials visited the shop of the petitioner and confiscated EPU machine. On the same day, the petitioner issued 988.27 kgs of rice to the MDU Operator. The total quantity involved in 3 BSB, J W.P.No.4829 of 2025 the transaction included 2788 quintals with a closing balance of 1508 kgs. The remaining balance is 3 quintals and 41 kgs of rice. The MDU operator returned 5 quintals and 37 kgs of rice to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner is left with one quintal and 96 kgs. of rice. Despite this, an excess of 2.86 quintals has been recorded as surplus. Without duly taking any disciplinary action, the supply of commodities to the petitioner has been stopped. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Oleti Tirupatamma Vs. District Supply Officer, Visakhapatnam1. It was held in the cited decision at para No.16 as follows: “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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 4 BSB, J W.P.No.4829 of 2025 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.” 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader represented that he had no written instructions, however, he submitted that variation in the stock is huge as per the contention of the petitioner and no relief can be granted in the writ petition. 6. In the light of the decision in Oleti Tirupatamma (1 supra) and as the petitioner cannot be denied supply of stock as long as authorization is in force, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the authorities to continue to supply the commodities to the petitioner on compliance of the legal formalities so long as the authorization is in force. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 24-02-2025 RAR