ORDER:-

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

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the seizer panchanama conducted by the 5th respondent on 05.04.2024 even though there are no variations in the stock and the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not allowing the petitioner to run FP shop i.e., shop No.315022, Lingampeta Village, Golugonda Mandal, Anakapalli District “without there being any order of suspension or cancellation” and without following due procedure under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the judgment passed by the Full Bench in 2002 (1) ALD 577 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Panchanama dated 05.04.2024 further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer as usual and pass such other orders...”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record.

3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as permanent dealer for the subject fair price shop through a notification issued by the 3rd respondent. On 04.04.2024, the villagers have caught hold one auto bearing No.AP 39 UN 8363 containing 15 bags of PDS rice and handed over the same to the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the 4th respondent instructed the 5th respondent to proceed with enquiry. The 5th respondent has conducted panchanama dated 05.04.2024 and recorded the statements of the auto driver and MDU operator. During the preparation of panchanama, the auto driver stated that the stock was loaded from the petitioner’s fair price shop. Immediately, the authorities have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found no variation in stock. He further submits that the petitioner is no way concerned with transportation of the PDS rice. Without issuing any suspension or cancellation order, the authorities are not allowing the petitioner to run the subject fair price shop and not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. In the absence of any cancellation or suspension order passed, exercising the power under Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘the Control Order’), the petitioner is deemed to be continuing as fair price shop dealer and is entitled to distribute essential commodities to the card holders. But, the respondents are not issuing the essential commodities to the petitioner and are not allowing her to run the fair price shop, as such, the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench reported in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1, in support of his contention. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned counsel for petitioner requested to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to run his fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the cardholders.

1 2002 (1) ALD 577

6. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the action of the respondents in all aspects.

7. No doubt, no suspension or cancellation proceedings were issued by the respondents.

8. No order under Clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, was passed, still the respondents are not allotting the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop for distribution of the same to the cardholders.

9. Earlier, a similar question came up before the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Oleti Tirupathamma V.District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others (referred supra)

wherein t