Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14156
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA, J
G UNAKAR SELF HELP GROUP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 22266/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M M M SRINIVASA RAO
For the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The action of disabling a fair price shop dealer without due process is illegal and arbitrary.
Headnote:This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the seizure panchanama conducted on 11-07-2025 illegal, arguing that there was no prior order for suspension or cancellation. The petitioner had been operating as a fair price shop dealer for four years without any orders justifying the cessation of service. The Court found the respondent's actions illegal and arbitrary, citing a precedent that mandates due process before disabling a fair price shop dealer. Consequently, the Court directed the supply of essential commodities to continue until formal objections were raised regarding the dealership. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the appointment of the petitioner and the incident leading to the writ. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments highlighting the lack of due process for cessation of shop operations. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's observation declaring the actions illegal and directive for operation. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final verdict disposing of the writ petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“….to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the seizer panchanama conducted by the 5th respondent on 11.07.2025 (elsewhere) and not allowing the petitioner to run FP Shop i.e., Shop No.1333011, Chinnadevalapuram Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Nandyal 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 dt.11.07.2025 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass any other order….”
2. The brief facts of the case are that vide proceedings in Rc.CS/410/2021, dated 29.03.2021, the 3rd respondent has appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1333011, Chinnadevalapuram Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Nandyal District, on temporary basis and accordingly, the petitioner has been running the same for the past four (04) years.
3. While so, on 11.07.2025, at about 12.11 p.m., the 5th respondent along with Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Assistant inspected the shop and found variation in the stock. Thereafter, basing on the report of the 5th respondent the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings under 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on 13.07.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without there being any order of suspension or cancellation of her dealership, the respondent authorities are not releasing the essential commodities to her shop.
Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri. M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 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 others, [2002 (1) ALD 577] in support of his contention. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to run her fair price shop and to supply essential commodities to the cardholders.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the action of the respondents in all aspects, but, no order terminating the dealership or suspending or cancelling the authorization is placed on record to deny supply of essential commodities.
7. Earlier, a similar question came up before the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Oleti Tirupathamma’s case (1 supra) wherein the Court held as follows –
“Such action disabling fair price shop dealer to run the shop without any order of suspension or cancellation is illegal and arbitrary and issued such directions”.
8. In view of the law laid down by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner by allowing her to distribute the same to the card holders, allotted to her fair price shop, till her dealership is terminated or till passing an order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petit
