APHC010450792024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3311]

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

WRIT PETITION NO: 23147/2024

Between:

M Sarojamma ...Petitioner

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.N.Aswartha Narayana

Counsel for the Respondent(s):

• 1.GP For Home
• 2.GP For Revenue
• 3.GP For Civil Supplies
• 4.GP For Commercial Tax

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in seizing and closing the fair price shop No.1258006, Honnampalli Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District pursuant to the panchanama dt.07.10.2024 and not allowing the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities in spite of subsisting the authorisation for distributing the essential commodities till 15.10.2024 to the card holders as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities in respect of fair price shop No.1258006, Honnampalli Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

a. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer bearing shop No.1258006, Honnampalli Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, having been appointed vide R.Dis.1848/91/H, dated 25.05.1991, by the 4 th respondent. Since then, the petitioner has been running fair price shop without there being any complaint and the authorisation of the petitioner is renewed up to 31.03.2025. While things stood thus, in respect of stock for the month of October, 2024, the respondents have been released on 25.09.2024 said stock also is stored in fair price shop. As matter of fact, the stock could be distributed when MPDO has to visit my shop and put a thumb it is an authorization, and which is mandatory to distribute the commodities. However the MPDO has not visited petitioner's shop and accorded any authorization. On 07.10.2024 the vigilance authorities visited the petitioner's shop and seized the stock by locking the premises. It seems no variation was found in the stock.

b. The petitioner is a widow and making her livelihood by the meager income from the shop. Previously, when she was not supplied commodities, she filed W.P.No.16133 of 2024 which was allowed on 29.07.2024 directing the authorities to supply the commodities.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there being any order suspending or cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, supply of the commodities was abruptly stopped and so the action of the respondents is illegal.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, placed on record the copy of written instructions of Tahsildar, Parigi Mandal, Sir Satya Sai District vide

Rc.No.170/CS/2024, dated 14.10.2024. Basing on the same, the learned counsel submitted that there was variation of the stock as follows:

Sl.	Name	O.B.	Allot	Total	Distrib	Closing	Physi	Variation	% of
No.	of the	(Kgs)	ment	(Kgs)	ution	balance	cal	(Kgs)	variation
	Comm		(Kgs)		(Kgs)	as per	Balance
	odity					Stock	(Kgs)
						Regr.
						(Kgs)
1	Forti	1508	9062	1057	0	10570	10550	-20 kgs	(-)0.189%
	fied			0
	rice
2	Jowar	127	634	761	0	761	716.6	-44.4	(-)5.83%
3	Sugar	0	688	688	0	688	689	+1	(+)0.14%

5. Therefore, he contended that there was violation of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and as such a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was booked to admit the case for necessary action and meanwhile alternative arrangements were made for supply of the commodities through VRO for smooth distribution of the commodities.

6. The learned counsel of the petitioner, in reply, submitted that the alleged variation in the stock of fortified rice and sugar is well within the permissible limit, since Clause 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 permits variation up to 1.5% per month. He further submitted that the variation in the stock of Jowar is negligible as the quantity is less and does not call for serious action of cancelling or suspending the dealership.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, since the dealership of the petitioner has not been suspended or cancelled so far, the supply of the commodities shall be continued to the petitioner.

3

8. As such, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to supply the commodities to the writ petitioner so long as the dealership is in force, subject to compliance of the other legal formalities.

9. However, this Order does not preclude the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI

Date: 18.11.2024 DSV

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

5

WRIT PETITION NO:23147 of 2024

Date: 18.11.2024 DSV

209

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

MAIN CASE NO : W.P.No.23147 of 2024

PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.<br>No.	Date	ORDER	OFFICE<br>NOTE
1	18.11.2024	BSB, J
		The Writ Petition is<br>disposed of.
		(vide separate order)
		_________________
		B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
		DSV