Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Maddu Devasahayam vs W.P.36835 Of 2025 on 7 January, 2026
APHC010720812025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 36835/2025
Between:
1. MADDU DEVASAHAYAM, S/O.MADDU JAMES, AGED ABOUT 93
YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 0822024,
DAGGUBADU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATIA
DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522 238
2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BAPATLA
DISTRICT, BAPATLA - 522 101
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA, BAPATLA
DISTRICT-523155
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, KARAMCHEDU,
BAPATIA DISTRICT-523 168
5. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES REVENUE INSPECTOR, PARCHUR MANDAL,
PARCHUR, BAPATIA DISTRICT -523 169
...RESPONDENT(S):
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
2
VS, J
W.P.36835 of 2025
pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature
of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not
supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop No.
0822024 of Daggubadu Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District,
without there being any suspension or cancellation of his authorization as
illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and
consequently direct the respondents to supply commodities to the petitioner's
Fair Price Shop No. 0822024 of Daggubadu Village, Karamchedu Mandal,
Prakasam District and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
direct the respondents to forthwith supply the essential commodities to the
petitioner's Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 0822024 of Daggubadu
Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the
above writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following:
3
VS, J
W.P.36835 of 2025
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop No. 0822024 of Daggubadu Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District, without there being any suspension or cancellation of his authorization as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to supply commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 0822024 of Daggubadu Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District...."
2. Brief facts of the case as follows:
a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0822024, Daggubadu Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District about 40 years ago. The petitioner's authorization has been renewed from time to time and in the month of March, 2025, the petitioner also paid the requisite fee for renewal of his authorization.
b) While the things stood thus, on 17.03.2025, the 5th respondent along with the revenue authorities, inspected the petitioner's Fair Price Shop and identified certain variations. A mediatornama was prepared and the stock was seized. Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a Show Cause Notice vide Rc.No.F/523/2025 dated 02.04.2025 duly framing a single charge as against the petitioner and calling 4 VS, J W.P.36835 of 2025 upon him to submit his explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.06.2025 denying the said charge. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering the explanation submitted by him to the Show Cause Notice and without even initiating any disciplinary proceedings, the 3rd respondent has stopped supply of essential commodities. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for civil supplies.
4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished a copy of instructions of the 3rd respondent duly enclosing a letter addressed to the Tahsildar, Karamchedu, requesting him to conduct an enquiry on the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the enquiry report from the Tahsildar has not yet been received.
5. The said instructions would establish that the fact that, as on today, no disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner except issuing a show-cause notice. In the absence of any such disciplinary action against the petitioner either by suspending or cancelling his authorization, the respondents cannot stop supply of essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop.5
VS, J W.P.36835 of 2025
6. In this regard, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others1, wherein it was categorically held as follows:
"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.
1 2002 (1) ALD 577 6 VS, J W.P.36835 of 2025
7. In the light of the above settled legal position and in view of the admitted facts of the case, this Court is the opinion that, in the absence of any disciplinary action, suspension or cancellation of authorization, the respondents cannot stop supply of essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop and to allow him to distribute the same to the cardholders until any disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 07.01.2026 KGR