SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
MELAM VIJAYA LAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 10196/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/S Astonish Laws, Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti
For the Respondents: GP For Civil Supplies, Appasani Vineeth

A statutory authority must follow the prescribed legal procedure to suspend or cancel a license; stopping supply or transferring a dealership without a formal order is arbitrary and illegal.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Fair Price Shop Dealership - Suspension of License - Requirement of formal order - Authorities cannot indirectly stop supply or hand over a shop to another person without following the statutory procedure for suspension or cancellation. (Para 12)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Arbitrariness - Action of executive without applying mind to statutory orders is illegal and capricious. (Para 13)

Issues: Whether the authorities can stop the supply of essential commodities and hand over a Fair Price shop to another dealer without a formal order of suspension or cancellation of the existing dealer's authorization.

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 pleased to pass an Order or a Direction or a Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 5th Respondent in suspending the Petitioner's dealership of FPS No. 0483078 at Vinayaka Nagar, Kakinada Urban-I, Kakinada District without issuing a written order, registering a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and handing over the shop to the 6th Respondent without cross-verifying variations (excess/deficit) in rice and sugar against electronic Point of Sale generated prints as arbitrary, autocratic, illegal, ultra vires, violative of principles Clause 12(p)(3) of the AP TPDS Control Order 2018 and against principles of natural justice consequently direct Respondents 1 to 5 to forthwith restore the Petitioner's dealership to F.P Shop No.0483078 in the interests of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 pass an interim Order by way of Direction by directing the Respondents 1 to 5 herein to restore the dealership to the Petitioner herein for F.P.Shop No. 0483078 at Vinayaka Nagar, Kakinada Urban-I, Kakinada District pending disposal of the main Writ Petition on the file of this Hon'ble Court in the interests of justice and pass

The Court made the following order:

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.5 in suspending the petitioner’s dealership in respect of shop No.0483078 situated at D.No.70-3A- 15, Vinayak Nagar, Kakinada Urban-1, Kakinada District, without issuing a written order, registering a case under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and handing over the shop to respondent No.6 without cross verifying variations in rice and sugar with reference to the e-POS printed bills and the stock, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel representing M/s Astonish Laws, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer to the subject shop. He further contended that on 05.04.2026 at about 5.30 P.M., respondent No.5 along with Village Revenue Officers of Vaidyanagar, Kakinada Urban-1, inspected the subject shop and found alleged variations of 10.89% in PDS rice and 0.27% in sugar stock. Based on the said variations, respondent No.5 registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, seized the physical stock and e-POS machine and directed the petitioner to submit explanation within three days to respondent No.2. He further submitted that without issuing any notice or order, without conducting any enquiry and without any order of suspension or cancellation as laid down under the Control Order, the authorities could not have handed over the stock of the petitioner’s shop to respondent No.6.

Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, placed on record the written instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada and contended that based on the alleged stock variations, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Kakinada Urban filed a case under 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 after seizing the physical stock in the subject Fair Price shop and duly reporting the same to respondent No.2 i.e., the Joint Collector, Kakinada, who acts as a confiscating authority for violation of the Control Order for enquiry and further action. He further submitted that in order to ensure smooth functioning and to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar dir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top