WP/2607/2024 of D PARAMESH KUMAR Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 April 2026

1. D PARAMESH KU SHOP DEALER F VILLAGE AND MAN

1. STATE OF AND SECRETARY CI VELAGAPUDI, GUN

2. THE COLLECTOR C

3. THE REVENUE D NELLORE DIST.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, DIST.

5. THE CIVIL SUPPL SPSR NELLORE D Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased tomay be plea mandamus declaring a respondent on 5-6-2023 allowing the petitione Buchireddipalem Village any order of suspension under The Andhra Pr E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 2607/2024 MAR, S/O SWAMULU AGE 48 YE FOR SHOP NO.0918005, BUCH NDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST AND DHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS VIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, S NTUR DIST. CS, SPSR NELLORE DIST., AT NELL DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE BUCHIREDDIPALEM MANDAL, SP IES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, BUCHIR IST ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High sed to issue a writ or direction pr

a) the seizer panchanama conduct

b) and the action of the respondents r to run FP Shop i.e.. Shop and Mandal, SPSR Nellore Dist with or cancellation and without following radesh State Targeted Public Distr DESH

L LAPATI ENS, OCC FP IREDDIPALEM ...PETITIONER S PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, LORE. TOWN, SPSR PSR NELLORE REDDYPALEM, SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be referably writ of ted by the 5th s 3 and 4 in not p No.0918005, hout there being g due procedure ribution System

(Control) Order, 2018. and the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.B2.173/2023 dt 22-12-2023 confiscating the entire stock and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,27,555/- c) is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the panchanama dt 5-6-2023 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent dt 22- 12-2023 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass any other order this Honble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated direct the respondents 3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to run the FP Shop i.e.. Shop No.0918005, Buchireddipalem Village And Mandal, SPSR Nellore Dist as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 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 to suspend the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.B2.173/2023 dt:22-12-2023, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated vacate the interim order dated 05-02-2024 in WP no. 2607 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition 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 permit the petitioner to amend the (C) prayer portion in W.P.2607/2024 as mentioned below in the interest of justice. Original prayer and the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.B2.173/2023 dt:22-12-2023 confiscating the entire stock and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,27,555/-. c) Seeking amendment in the prayer C) and the order passed by the 2ND respondent vide Rc.B2.173/2023 dt 22-12-2023 confiscating the entire stock Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that without there being any order of suspension or cancellation and without following the due procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not allowing the petitioner to run the Fair Price shop bearing No.0918005, Buchireddipalem village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and further challenging order passed by respondent No.2 vide Rc.B2.173/2023 dated 22.12.2023, whereby the entire stock was confiscated and panchanama dated 05.06.2023, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasarao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as permanent dealer to the subject shop. He further contended that respondent No.5 inspected the subject shop on 05.06.2023 and allegedly found certain variations between the physical stock and book balance. He further submitted that at the time of inspection, the petitioner explained that the MDM Sortex rice of 2437.740 kgs was available from May, 2023 which had not been updated in the e-PoS machine, though the same was duly reflected in the online Stock Register report. Without verifying the said online report, respondent No.5 mechanically prepared panchanama and submitted a report to respondent No.2 for initiation of 6A proceedings. He further contended that after receipt of the said report, respondent No.2 proceeded without furnishing a copy of the said report to the petitioner and issued a show cause notice dated 25.07.2023 calling for explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.08.2023 requesting to verify the online Stock Register Report, as the balance rice of 2437.740kgs was consistently reflected every month. He further submitted that though the petitioner has produced the online statement at the time of hearing of 6A proceedings, respondent No.2, by order dated 22.12.2023, directed confiscation of the stock, as if the petitioner had not updated the e- PoS machine. The said action is ex facie illegal and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that without there being any order of suspension or cancellation, the authorities are not allowing to run the shop. He further submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (city) Visakhapatnam and others1, held that ‘if licensing authority themselves upon application of mind came to the conclusion that the irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant suspension of his license, it may do so. But in our considered opinion, the authority without taking recourse to the said action, cannot refuse to supply the essential commodities’. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

1 2002 (1) ALD 577

4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, fairly conceded that the authorities cannot stop the supply of essential commodities, unless the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner is either suspended or cancelled. He further contended that the authority is required to pass a separate and independent order with regard to the stoppage of supply of essential commodities, however seeking liberty for the authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that on account of certain alleged irregularities, the petitioner’s stock was seized by the authorities and an order of confiscation was passed. This Court vide order dated 05.02.2024 granted interim stay of operation of the order passed by respondent No.2 in Rc.B2.173/2023, dated 22.12.2023.

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, there is neither suspension nor cancellation of the FP shop authorization of the petitioner. Therefore, the stoppage of supply of essential commodities for being distributed to the cardholders allocated to the FP shop of the petitioner is unsustainable. Insofar as 6A proceedings are concerned, there is a mechanism of alternative remedy of an appeal provided by virtue of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, wherein the petitioner can as well question the same before the authorities instead of questioning the same before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price shop as per the rules in vogue. However, the petitioner is at liberty to question the proceedings under Section 6-A before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. It is made clear that in the event the respondent authorities intend to take action in respect of any alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner, they can take steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 16.04.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.2607 of 2024 16.04.2026

MP