Potnuru Venkatesh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 1226 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1226 AP
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Potnuru Venkatesh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 February, 2024

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI                   [ 3329 ]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

             WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                      PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 3792 OF 2024

Between:
   1. Potnuru Venkatesh, S/o Latchumu, Aged 33 years, Occ Fair price shop
      dealer, R/o. H.No.1-175, PotnuruStreet, KollivalasaVillage, Burja Mandal,
      Srikakulam District.

                                                                   ...PETITIONER(S)
                                      AND
   1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
      (Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS-I) Department), Secretariat,
      Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
   2. Joint Collector Civil Supplies Wing, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
   3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District.
   4. Tahsildar, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.
   5. Jeedi Rajyalakshmi, W/o Jeedi Venn, Aged 32 years, Occ Member of Vasavi
      Self Help Group, R/o Kollivalasa Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not continuing the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0111015 situated in ollivalasa village of Burja Mandal in Srikakulam District without therein being any suspension or cancellation of his authorization pursuant to Show Cause Notice dt. 26.08.2023 in Rc.No.1377/2023/CS issued by the 3rd respondent and consequential action of the respondents 2 to 4 in continuing the 5th respondent as Temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer for petitioner's said shop, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution (Control)Order, 2008 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders by removing the 5th respondent as temporary fair price shop dealer for the said shop and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the petitioner as Fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 0111015 situated in Kollivalasa Village of burja Mandal in Srikakulam District by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders, pending disposal of main Writ Petition

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SRINIVAS AMBATI

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following:

1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as permanent

Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0111015, Kollivalasa Village, Burja

Mandal, Srikakulam District, for distribution of essential commodities to the

card holders.

2. It is submitted that, the husband of the 5th respondent lodged a

complaint against the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the

Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Amadalavalasa along with VRO Kollivalasa

conducted a sudden inspection and found certain variations in the stock

and registered 6-A case. Later, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice

dated 26.08.2023 and framed charges against the petitioner. The petitioner

submitted his explanation. Without considering the explanation submitted

by the petitioner, essential commodities were stopped in respect of the

petitioner's fair price shop for distributing the same to the cardholders and

appointed the 5th respondent as temporary dealer. Though no suspension or

cancellation order was passed till date, the authorities are not allotting the

essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner, to distribute

the same to the card holders allotted to the shop.

3. 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

(temporary) 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 him to run the fair price shop, as such,

the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

4. 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.

5. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

supported the action of the respondents in all aspects.

6. No doubt, no suspension or cancellation proceedings were issued

by the respondents.

7. 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.

8. 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 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".

2002 (1) ALD 577

9. Following the same judgment, learned Single Judge of this Court

disposed of Writ Petition No.10396 of 2019 in favour of the petitioner

therein.

10. In view of the law declared by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, I find that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

Therefore, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair

price shop dealer in respect of shop No.0111015, Kollivalasa Village, Burja

Mandal, Srikakulam District and to allot essential commodities to the

petitioner by allowing him to distribute the same to the card holders,

allotted to his fair price shop, till termination of dealership or till passing

order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018.