Gudisa Sarada Vs the State of Ap

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 to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the seizer panchanama conducted by the 5th respondent in the absence of the petitioner on 24-1-2025 without mentioning the categorically the details of Fortified rice except shown 110 kgs as variation and forciable taken away the entire stock from the FP shop and not allowing the petitioner to run FP Shop

¶20

2

¶21

VS,J

¶22

W.P.No.2574 of 2025

¶23

i.e., Shop No.0707039, K.V.Palem Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu Dist., without there being any order of suspension or cancellation and without following due procedure as contemplated under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the control order and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the panchanama dt 24-1-2025 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 to Stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Seizer Panchanama conducted by the 5th respondent on 24-1-2025 by allowing the petitioner to run the shop i.e., FP Shop No.0707039, K.V.Palem Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu Dist., as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶27

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 1st respondent to conduct enquiry about the highhanded action of the 5th respondent in taking away available stock in the shop i.e., FP No.0707039, K.V.Palem Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu Dist., without foilowing the procedure as contempiated udder The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and submit the report before this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.M M M SRINIVASA RAO

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶32

2.SARANU PHANI TEJA

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

3

¶35

VS,J W.P.No.2574 of 2025

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶38

“… to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the seizer panchanama conducted by the 5th respondent in the absence of the petitioner on 24-1-2025 without mentioning the categorically the details of Fortified rice except shown 110 kgs as variation and forciable taken away the entire stock from the FP shop and not allowing the petitioner to run FP Shop i.e., Shop No.0707039, K.V.Palem Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu Dist., without there being any order of suspension or cancellation and without following due procedure as contemplated under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the control order and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the panchanama dt 24-1-2025 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual ….”

¶39

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶40

a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer

¶41

for Shop No.0707039, K.V.Palem Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu District in the year 2008. The petitioner’s authorization is valid up to 31.03.2025. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been running the Fair Price Shop without any complaints either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities.

¶42

b) While so, on 24.01.2025, the 5^th respondent, along with a Police Constable, Atchampeta Police Station and a transport van, came to the

¶43

4

¶44

VS,J W.P.No.2574 of 2025

¶45

petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and loaded the available stock into the van. After completion of the said inspection, the 5^th respondent/Deputy Tahsildar prepared a panchanama in his office, allegedly recording a variation of 110 kgs of fortified rice and obtained signatures of interested persons. Basing on a report submitted by the 5^th respondent, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide orders dated 14.02.2025. Challenging the said order, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.4307 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 19.02.2025, which reads as follows:

¶46

“….the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order vide R.C.No.342/2025-C, dated 14.02.2025. However, the authorities are at liberty to continue with the enquiry as per law, if found necessary. “

¶47

c) Thereafter, the respondents have not conducted any enquiry. The case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, the petitioner is challenging the seizure panchanama dated 24.01.2025 conducted by the 5^th respondent in her absence, without categorically mentioning the details of fortified rice except showing 110 kgs as variation and forcibly taking away the entire stock from the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop without there being any order of suspension or cancellation, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶48

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

¶49

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.4307 of 2025 challenging the suspension order passed by the 3^rd respondent vide

¶50

5

¶51

VS,J W.P.No.2574 of 2025

¶52

R.C.No.342/2025-C dated 14.02.2025, which was set aside by this Court, while directing the respondents to continue the petitioner until an enquiry is conducted. The panchanama conducted at the time of inspection becomes part and parcel of the suspension order which in fact was under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.4307 of 2025. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that if at all the petitioner has any personal grievance against the 5^th respondent regarding the loading of the stock into the van, she is at liberty to pursue appropriate criminal proceedings against the 5^th respondent in her individual capacity, but not by way of the present writ petition. Further, the petitioner ought to have raised all these grounds in the earlier writ petition. Filing the present writ petition after eight months challenging the panchanama is impermissible.

¶53

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶55

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶56

Dated: 09.12.2025 KGR

Gudisa Sarada v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudisa Sarada v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Pakkerappa Vs K Kondanna

T.Pakkerappa, Vs K. Kondanna

Chaprala John Suresh Babu Vs Siddabattuni Prabhu

Kondrothu Eswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

M/S. Vallabhaneni Constructions Private Limited Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vsr Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh