P.Bharati Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010446642025

¶2

[3333]

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23326/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.BHARATI, W/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC- FP SHOP DEALER, R/OAJJADA VILLAGE, BALIJAPETA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUBCOLLECTOR, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, BALIJAPETA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, BALIJAPETA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

VS,J W.P No.23326 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

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 order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to the declare the inaction of the respondents to supply/release the Commodities by restoring the the petitioner FP shop No.0209001 authorization at Ajjada Village, Balijapeta Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District Erstwhile Vizianagaram District is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 8 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently Direct the respondents to suppling/release the Commodities by restoring the the petitioner FP shop No.0209001 authorization at Ajjada Village, Balijapeta Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District Erstwhile Vizianagaram District and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 respondents to supplying/release the Commodities by restoring the the petitioner FP shop No.0209001 authorization at Ajjada Village, Balijapeta Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District Erstwhile Vizianagaram District and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.TOTA TEJESWARA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶26

VS,J W.P No.23326 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶31

“…to issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus to the declare the inaction of the respondents to supply/release the Commodities by restoring the petitioner FP Shop No.0209001 authorization at Ajjada Village, Balijapeta Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District Erstwhile Vizianagaram District is highly arbitrary violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS (Control) order 2008 and clause 8 of the AP PDS (Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently Direct the respondents to supplying/release the Commodities by restoring the FP shop No.0209001 authorization at Ajjada Village, Balijapeta Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District Erstwhile Vizianagaram District and pass such other order/s or orders…”

¶32

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for a Shop bearing No. 0209001 at Ajjada Village, Balijapeta Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District (erstwhile Vizianagaram District) in 2021 by the respondent No.3. The dealership of the petitioner was duly renewed from time to time, and it was recently renewed on 01.04.2023, which is valid up to 31.03.2025. The petitioner has also paid the renewal fee of Rs. 500/- on 28.02.2025 and has been sincerely distributing the PDS commodities to the villagers without any remarks and without interruption of the respondent authorities.

¶33

VS,J W.P No.23326 of 2025

¶34

4

¶35

b) On 15.05.2025, the respondent No.4 conducted a surprise inspection on the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and found a variation of 705 kgs (less) of PDS rice and issued a show cause notice dated 16.06.2025. Though, the petitioner had not committed any violation under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or under the violation of Control Orders of 2008 and 2018, submitted her explanation, stating that after the introduction of Mobile Dispensing Units (MDUs), the FPS dealer has no control over the release of commodities from the MLS point or the distribution to cardholders, which is now managed by MDU operators. The discrepancy with regard to the variation of stocks in only due to a technical issue with the EPOS device, and no fault lies on her part in disturbing the essential commodities.

¶36

c) Inspite of making several requests, representations/explanations to the respondent authorities, for restoration of supply of essential commodities and her continuation as FPS dealer, no action was taken. However, by considering the requests, representations/explanations, the respondent No.3, vide proceedings in Rc. No.447/2025/DT(LR) dated 02.07.2025, directed the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to allot essential commodities to the petitioner by cancelling the temporary arrangements made earlier upon payment of a fine of Rs. 3,000/- payable by the petitioner. But, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has not restored the petitioner’s FP shop dealership by supplying the essential commodities. The petitioner has finally made a

¶37

VS,J W.P No.23326 of 2025

¶38

5

¶39

representation dated 23.07.2025 to restore her dealership. Since, no action is taken by the respondent authorities, the present writ petition was filed.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions, placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench reported in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others¹ in support of his contention. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to run his fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the cardholders.

¶42

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the action of the respondents in all aspects, but, no order terminating the dealership or suspending or cancelling the authorization is placed on record to deny supply of essential commodities.

¶43

On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it is evident that the respondent authorities, without issuing any order of suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner.

¶44

1 2002 (1) ALD 577

¶45

VS,J W.P No.23326 of 2025

¶46

6

¶47

In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others ) , wherein it was categorically held as follows:

¶48

“ 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.

¶49

In the present case on hand, the respondents without initiating disciplinary proceedings, if any, in accordance with law, cannot stop the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary in view of law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment.

¶50

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

¶51

VS,J W.P No.23326 of 2025

¶52

7

¶53

price shop and allow the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders as dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0209001, Ajjada Village, Balijapeta Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District until any disciplinary action has been initiated as against the petitioner.

¶54

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall

¶55

be no order as to costs.

¶56

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶57

Date:04.09.2025 Ksj

P.Bharati v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Bharati v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muppidi Anandarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Sridevi Vs the State of Ap

Karnati Rami Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Takkoli Maheswar Reddy Vs Nimmakayala Veera Reddy

Kanakamedala Venkata Rajendra Prasad Vs Nakkelayya Ramakrishna Siva Prasad

The Superintending Engineer Vs J.Subba Reddy