Disposed¶36

Bysani Chandrakala v. the State of Ap

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Fair Price Shop dealership

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Mar 2025WP/7538/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC W.P. No. 7538/2025 (Sumathi Jagadam, J., 25.03.2025): fair price shop dealer appointment (R.C No. 203/2024-E, 10.07.2024) without suspension/cancellation of incumbent Bysani Chandrakala's authorization held contrary to Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer, 2002 (1) ALD 577; petitioner continued as dealer for Shop No. 0788016, Ponnuru Town & Mandal, Guntur District; liberty to proceed with enquiry; Article 226; Articles 14, 19, 21.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner continued as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 0788016, Ponnuru Town & Mandal, Guntur District, with liberty to respondents to proceed with the enquiry; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶36

Bysani Chandrakala Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the 2nd respondent's appointment of the 4th respondent as fair price shop dealer vide R.C No. 203/2024-E dated 10.07.2024, made without suspension or cancellation of the petitioner's authorization, is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the petitioner ought to be continued as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 0788016, Ponnuru Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

¶24

Court's answer

Appointment of the 4th respondent as fair price shop dealer while the petitioner's authorization had been neither cancelled nor suspended through due procedure of law or enquiry is contrary to this Court's decision in Oleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer (2002 (1) ALD 577), which holds that an authority cannot do indirectly what it must do directly by taking recourse to suspension of licence.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's authorization has not been cancelled or suspended by following due procedure of law through any enquiry, the Court directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 0788016 of Ponnuru Town & Mandal, Guntur District.

¶32

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Fair Price Shop dealership - Writ of Mandamus sought by Bysani Chandrakala challenging appointment of the 4th respondent as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 0788016, Ponnuru Town and Mandal, Guntur District, vide proceedings R.C No. 203/2024-E dated 10.07.2024, effected without suspension or cancellation of the petitioner's existing authorization, though a show cause notice dated 10.07.2024 had been issued on the 3rd respondent's report and the petitioner's explanation followed on 18.07.2024. Relying on Oleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer, 2002 (1) ALD 577, the High Court held that authorities cannot, without taking recourse to suspension or cancellation of authorization after due procedure, install another dealer for distribution of essential commodities. The writ petition was disposed of directing that the petitioner be continued as fair price shop dealer, with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry, and with no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010143982025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3459]

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 7538/2025

Between:

Bysani Chandrakala

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.K SRINIVAS

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

JS,J W.P.No.7538/2025

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

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

¶24

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in appointing the 4^th respondent as a fair price shop dealer vide proceedings in R.C No. 203/2024-E dated 10.07.2024 without suspension or cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 AND 21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 0788016 situated at Ponnuru Town and Mandal, Guntur District, and pass such other orders…….”

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that on the report submitted by 3^rd respondent, the 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 10.07.2024. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 18.07.2024. Without there being any cancellation/suspension of the dealership of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have appointed the 4^th respondent for distribution of the essential commodities, which is contrary to the decision of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma vs. District Supply Officer¹ , wherein it was held as under:

¶26

“15. It is one thing to say that when an order has been passed by the authority, the Court may pass an interim staying the operation thereof as a result whereof the dealer may carry on business, but it is another thing to say that a deliberate action in not supplying the essential commodities to an authorised dealer even though his authorisation or licence has not

¶27

1 2002 (1) ALD 577

¶28

¶29

JS,J W.P.No.7538/2025

¶30

been suspended, should be allowed by this Court by refusing to grant a writ although in law he is entitled to.

¶31

16. 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.”

¶32

Since the authorization of the petitioner has not been cancelled or suspended by following due procedure of law by conducting any enquiry, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for shop

¶33

¶34

JS,J W.P.No.7538/2025

¶35

No.0788016 of Ponnuru Town & Mandal, Guntur District. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry.

¶36