Disposed¶36

T Krishna Murthy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jan 2025WP/1101/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.1101 of 2025, T. Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (AP High Court, Amaravati, 20.01.2025, B S Bhanumathi J): suspension of fair price shop No.1283021 authorization, Rayadurg Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District; Clause 12(s) AP State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018; participation in election campaign / model code of conduct; requirement of finding that PDS was hampered; no show cause notice; appeal pending before 2nd respondent; impugned order RC.No.340/B1/2024 dated 08.03.2024 set aside; writ of mandamus under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of by setting aside the impugned order vide RC.No.340/B1/2024, dated 08.03.2024, subject to the observation regarding any final cancellation order; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶36

T Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010013922025

¶2

[3311]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1101/2025

BETWEEN:

T. KRISHNA MURTHY

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

¶12

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

¶14

1.K V RAGHU VEER

¶15

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶19

“...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring proceedings vide Rc.No.340/B1/2024, dated 18.03.2024, issued by the 3^rd respondent suspending authorization of petitioner’s fair price shop No.1283021 of Rayadurg Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, for indefinite period and without giving an opportunity of being heard as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same

W.P.No.1101 of 2025

Dt: 20.01.2025

by directing the 3^rd respondent to continue the petitioner as fair price shop No.1283021 of Rayadurg Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.”

¶24

The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.1283021 of Rayadurg Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District by the 3^rd respondent. Since then, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities without any complaints. While so, based on the report submitted by the Assistant Returning Officer on the allegation that the petitioner had participated in election campaign in favour of Y.C.P party which is against the model code of conduct, the 3^rd respondent issued impugned proceedings vide RC.No.340/B1/2024, dated 08.03.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioner without issuing any show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said order of suspension, the petitioner filed an appeal along with application of stay before the 2^nd respondent, but till today no order has been passed is the grievance of the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition was filed.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without Clause 12(s) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 being completely satisfied by passing a specific order that the alleged participation of the dealer in the political campaign resulted in hampering the distribution system, the impugned order is illegal.

¶27

The learned Assistant Government Pleader represented that he has no written instructions, but he has not disputed the legal proposition that Clause 12(s) of the Control Order, 2018 requires that the appointing authority shall find that participation of the dealer in the campaign resulted in hampering the public distribution system.

¶28

He further submitted that he had no knowledge as to whether any order subsequent to the impugned order had been passed.

W.P.No.1101 of 2025

Dt: 20.01.2025

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the instructions to him, no final order was passed.

¶33

Clause 12(s) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, which reads as follows:

¶34

"No fair price shop dealer/MDU operator shall take part in any political activity directly or indirectly in any General/Municipal/Panchayat Raj elections, hampering the public distribution system and the authorization granted to them under the order shall be cancelled, if she/he was found involved in such political activity/canvassing"

¶35

A perusal of the impugned order shows that except the alleged participation of the petitioner in the election campaign, there is no specific observation that such participation resulted in hampering the distribution of the commodities. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. But, if any final order was passed cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, it has to be challenged by the petitioner and the impugned order doesn’t survive for challenge.

¶36

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order vide RC.No.340/B1/2024, dated 08.03.2024 subject to the above observation.

¶37

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶39

___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI

¶40

Date: 20.01.2025 DSV

¶41

¶42

W.P.No.1101 of 2025 Dt: 20.01.2025

¶43