Fair Price Shop Dealer Entitled to Essential Commodities if Authorization Valid and No Suspension: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Fair Price Shop Dealer's Right to Essential Commodities

Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh - In a recent judgment delivered on December 30, 2024, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, presided over by Justice B. S.Bhanumathi , ruled in favor of a fair price shop dealer whose supply of essential commodities was unjustly halted. The court, in Writ Petition No. 30346/2024, directed the respondent authorities to immediately resume the supply to the petitioner, Pabbisetty Venugopal , emphasizing that a valid authorization entitles a dealer to continue operations until due process is followed for suspension or termination.

Case Background: Undue Halt in Supply

Pabbisetty Venugopal , the petitioner, has been operating fair price shop No. 0848012 in Alakurapadu Village, Prakasam district since February 1, 2012. According to the petition, Mr. Venugopal has maintained a clean record without complaints from either authorities or cardholders. An inspection on December 9, 2024, found no discrepancies in stock. Despite this, the petitioner alleged that respondents No. 4 and 5 abruptly stopped supplying essential commodities, purportedly due to political pressures, and without any prior notice or formal suspension/cancellation order. This action prevented him from distributing the December commodities even though his authorization remained valid.

Petitioner's Plea: Restore Legitimate Operations

Represented by Advocate Alapati Vivekananda, Mr. Venugopal sought the court's intervention to declare the respondents' action illegal and arbitrary. He prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 4 and 5 to resume the supply of essential commodities, allowing him to continue functioning as a fair price shop dealer. The petitioner argued that with no stock variation found and a valid authorization in place, the cessation of supply was unwarranted and unlawful.

Government's Stand: No Instructions, Request for Merit-Based Disposal

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the respondents, admitted to having no written instructions on the matter but requested the court to dispose of the writ petition based on its merits. This essentially meant the respondents did not present a substantive defense to justify the stoppage of supply in the absence of any formal order against the petitioner.

Court's Observation and Ruling: Due Process Must Prevail

Justice Bhanumathi , after considering the submissions, firmly underscored the principle of due process. The court noted that the inspection revealed no stock irregularities, and crucially, the petitioner's authorization had neither been cancelled nor suspended.

The judgment explicitly stated: "Since no variation in the stock was found as per the contents of the panchnama dated 09.12.2024 and the appointment of the petitioner has not been cancelled or suspended, the petitioner is entitled to continue to supply the commodities as fair price shop dealer as usual until such appointment is suspended or terminated by following due procedure of law."

Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition in favor of Mr. Venugopal . The respondent authorities were directed to "supply the essential commodities to the petitioner on complying the requirements for such supply, until the appointment is suspended or terminated by following due procedure of law." The court made it clear that any action to suspend or terminate the petitioner's authorization must be conducted according to established legal procedures.

This judgment serves as a reminder that administrative actions affecting livelihoods must be grounded in law and adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair and transparent processes even in matters concerning public distribution systems.

No order as to costs.