D Siva Parvathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D SIVA PARVATHI, W/O. R.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP.NO.12 OF NAGISETTIPALLI VILLAGE, BRAMHAMGARI MATTAM MANDAL, Y.S.R.DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT CIVIL SUPPLIERS. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R.DISTRICT, KADAPA.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL REVENUE DIVISION, BADVEL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT.

¶15

THETAHSILDAR, BRAMHAMGARI MATTAM MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT.

¶16

THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, BRAMHAMGARI MATTAM MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the

¶19

2

¶20

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.G/93/2025, dated 21-02-2025 issued by the respondent No.3 cancelling Fair Price Shop Authorization issued in my favor for the Fair Price Shop.No.1107012 of Nagisettipalli Village, Bramhamgari Mattam Mandal, Y.S.R. District as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the settled principles of the legal position and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 suspend the proceedings in Ref.No.G/93/2025, dated 21-02-2025 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶31

“…. to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref No G/93/2025 dated 21022025 issued by the respondent No 3 cancelling Fair Price Shop Authorization issued in my favor for the Fair Price Shop No 1107012 of Nagisettipalli Village Bramhamgari Mattam Mandal Y S R District as arbitrary illegal colorable exercise of power contrary to the settled principles of the legal position and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass any other order ….”

¶32

The petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.1107012 of Nagisettipalli Village, Bramhamgari Mattam Mandal, Y.S.R. District in the year, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner’s authorization was extended from time to time. Since then, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the card holders without any complaints either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities.

¶33

While the matter stood thus, on 01.01.2025, the 5^th respondent inspected the petitioner’s shop in view of change in the Government. The inspection revealed no variation in the commodities, and no panchanama was conducted. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the same, the 3^rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings suspending the petitioner’s authorization on 21.02.2025, without issuing a show cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner.

¶34

4

¶35

When the writ petition came up for admission on 11.03.2025, this Court passed an interim order suspending the impugned proceedings dated 21.02.2025, for a period of eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order has been extended till date.

¶36

Heard Sri. Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above requested this Court to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to run her fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the card holders.

¶38

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the action of the respondents in all aspects, but, have admitted that no order terminating the dealership or suspending or cancelling the authorization has been passed as on today.

¶39

On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 21.02.2025, it can be observed that neither a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation from the petitioner, nor any panchanama was conducted on the date of inspection i.e., 01.01.2025, however, only basing on the report of the 4^th respondent dated 04.01.2025, the present impugned proceedings have been issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶40

5

¶41

As the 3^rd respondent has passed the impugned order solely basing on the report submitted by the 4^th respondent dated 04.01.2025 even without issuing show cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner and has straight away suspended the authorization of the petitioner, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Further, in view of the fact that as no further disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the show cause notice issued to her, the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment rendered in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others¹ , the Court held as follows:

¶42

“Such action disabling fair price shop dealer to run the shop without any order of suspension or cancellation is illegal and arbitrary and issued such directions”.

¶43

In view of the law laid down by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner by allowing her to distribute the same to the card holders, allotted to her fair price shop, till her dealership is terminated or till passing an order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018.

¶44