ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer of shop No.1216001 of Belaguppa village, on 05.11.2005. Since then she has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint. She also paid challan for renewal of her authorization. She obtained Demand Draft bearing No.342897 dated 19.03.2015 but the same was not accepted by the 4th respondent stating that the petitioner would not be given the stock. The respondents have supplied the stock to third person. The respondents stopped the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop to distribute the same to the cardholders without there being any order of suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 [for short ‘Control Order’]. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

This Court, on 21.05.2015, while ordering notice before admission, granted interim direction directing the respondents to release the stock to the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing the demand draft.

Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit on behalf of all the respondents inter alia stating that since the authorization of the permanent fair price shop dealer was cancelled, the petitioner was only appointed as a temporary dealer to run the administration smoothly. No authorization is subsisting in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has no legal right to seek continuance of the temporary dealership.

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submit that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents have received the Demand Draft and have been supplying essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop to distribute the same to the card holders.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court found that the respondent authorities refused to receive the demand draft and illegally stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner contrary to the provisions of the Control Order. As per the provisions of the Control Order, the respondent authorities are under statutory obligation to supply the essential commodities as long as the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization is in subsistence. Therefore, this Court found force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities, without suspending or cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization, have no right to stop supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. Further, in the counter, nowhere it is stated that the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization is either suspended or cancelled. It is only stated that the petitioner is only a temporary dealer and she has no right to seek continuance of her dealership. In Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam [2002(1) ALD 577] the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that 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 license, it may do so, but, the authority without taking recourse to the said action, cannot, refuse to supply the essential commodities.

In view of the above discussion, while holding that the action of the respondent authorities in not receiving the demand draft and not releasing the essential commodities to the petitioner during the subsistence of the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provis