Allowed¶29

Addanki Venkateswarlu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jan 2025WP/509/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair price shop dealership suspension; Clause 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018; stock variation to be computed on total stock lifted, not quantum of sales; PDS rice (11,815 Kgs supplied, 6,999 Kgs distributed, 115 Kgs shortage); Article 226 mandamus; Articles 14 and 21; Prakasam District; Donakonda Mandal; writ allowed, suspension set aside (W.P.No.509 of 2025, dt. 20.01.2025, B S Bhanumathi, J).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned Proceedings Rc.E/311/2024 dated 21.11.2024 set aside; no orders as to costs. ¶29

Addanki Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010009822025

¶2

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

¶3

[3311]

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 509/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Addanki Venkateswarlu

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.Madhava Rao Nalluri

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP for Civil Supplies

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶19

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

¶20

“… to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring if the action of the Respondents No.3 in suspending the Dealership Authorization of the petitioner through Proceedings No.Rc.E/311/2024, dated 21.11.2024 in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.0805010, Indlacheruvu Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, contrary to Clause 29(a) of the Control Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the Proceedings Rc.E/311/2024, dated 21.11.2024 in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.0805010, Indlacheruvu Village

¶21

¶22

BSB, J

¶23

W.P.No.509 of 2025

¶24

Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, issued by the 3^rd Respondent, by directing the Respondents to supply the commodities to the petitioner, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.0805010, Indlacheruvu Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District …”

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed against Clause 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, since the percentage of the variation in the stock is within the permissible limit.

¶26

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions which are replica of the impugned proceeding.

¶27

4. Perused the record.

¶28

The main charge against the petitioner is that the total quantity of PDS rice supplied to the petitioner is 11,815 Kgs out of which 6,999 Kgs was distributed and there was a shortage of 115 Kgs of the PDS rice in the ground stock. As can be seen from the impugned order, the percentage of the variation was calculated on the quantum of the sales, instead of the total stock lifted. As per Clause 29(a) of the Control Order, 2018, the variation should be calculated on the total stock, but not on the quantum of sales alone. As such, the order is ex facie illegal and is liable to be set aside.

¶29