Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7568
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
K OCHERA SANJEEVAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 6079/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: RAJA REDDY KONETI
For the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
A party without locus standi cannot challenge an action regarding fair price shop operations after a proper dealer is appointed.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ of Mandamus - Action of the respondents in not supplying essential commodities questioned - Petition filed by a Fair Price Shop dealer alleging illegal action without inquiry - Court found that the petitioner had no locus standi as she was not the authorized dealer - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Fair Price Shop - Impact of show-cause notice - Inadvertent issuance of show-cause notice did not confer any locus standi on the petitioner to file the writ petition - Previous authorization suspended and new dealer appointed. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition questioned the withholding of supplies to a Fair Price Shop, followed by a claim of unauthorized issuance of a show-cause notice against the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
It was established that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the actions of the authorities as she was not the fair price shop dealer.
Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained given the petitioner's standing and the nature of the notice issued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner had no standing as demonstrated by the withdrawal of the erroneous show-cause notice and subsequent proper termination and appointment of another dealer.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner questions action against fair price shop for commodity supply. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court examines authorization and inadvertently issued show cause notices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioner lacks standing, no substantiating evidence for claim. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court rules on locus standi affecting case entertainability. (Para 9) |
The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not supplying essential commodities to the petitioners fair price shop No.0789030 of Bapatla Town and Mandal, for distribution to the card holders.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is running the above Fair Price Shop representing „Priyadarshini Dwakra Group‟. It is further case of the petitioner that on 12.12.2024 at about 5.00 p.m., the 4th respondent along with V.R.O. and mediators verified the stock register and found excess quantity of 16.85 quintals of rice. In view thereof, a report was sent by the 4th respondent on 11.12.2024 to the 3rd respondent for taking action against the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the 3rd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 18.12.2024 to the petitioner as to why the authorization shall not be cancelled for violation of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 r/w Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner claims that she submitted explanation on 26.12.2024 and the same was received by the 3rd respondent on 28.12.2024. It is further case of the petitioner that without conducting any enquiry in pursuance of the show-cause notice, the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 21.01.2025 appointed the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer. It is specific case of the petitioner that without initiating any action against the petitioner and without suspending the authorization of the petitioner, the respondents have stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that, she is a member of “Sri Krishna Jyothi Dwakra Group” of Bapatla Town and she was recommended for appointing as Fair Price Shop Dealer, and accordingly by proceedings dated 21.01.2025 she was appointed as dealer of the Fair Price Shop in dispute. It is further case of the 5th respondent that initially one Smt.Kochera Sumalatha was appointed as temporary Fair Price Shop dealer and the writ petitioner is mother- in-law of the said Sumalatha. It is further stated that the said Sumalatha is not residing in the village and the writ petitioner was running the fair price shop. After conducting inspection with regard to the alleged variations in respect of the stock, the authorization of Kochera Sumalatha was suspended by proceedings dated 18.01.2025 and thereafter her authorization was terminated by proceedings dated 23.04.2025 by the 4th respondent. It is further stated that the writ petitioner is absolute stranger and she was not the dealer of the fair price shop in dispute and therefore she has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Since the petitioner was present during the inspection, inadvertently without verifying the records, show cause notice dated 18.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the material available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that originally Smt.Kochera Sumalatha was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer, which is in question. It is also not in dispute that after inspecting the Fair Price Shop of the said individual, a show-cause notice was issued to her and after enquiry, her authorization was terminated by proceedings dated 23.04.2025. The copy of termination proceedings filed along with the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would submit that show-cause notice dated 18.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner inadvertently
