APHC010127622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6652/2025 Between: K Alluramma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 JS,J W.PNo.6652/2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…………… issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in suspending the petitioner authorization vide proceeding in Rc.C/75/2025 dated 24-02-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.0809024, Goguladinne Village, Markapur Mandal, Markapur Division, Prakasam District as illegal and contrary to A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequentially set aside the proceedings of the Respondent No.3 in Rc.75/2025, dated 24-02-2025 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. Shop Dealer and pass such other order or orders…………” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0809024 of Goguladinne village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. On the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has issued show cause notice on 10.02.2025. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the show cause notice. The respondents, without considering the explanation, has suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s shop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to note the variations and the variations mentioned in the panchanama are within the permissible limits. 3 JS,J W.PNo.6652/2025 4. In similar circumstances, this Court in K. Prabhavathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others1, wherein at para Nos.10 & 11 it was held as follows: “10. Then, the next important aspect is that though the prior show cause notice is not mandatory, suspension shall not be made as a matter of course but the authority shall apply its mind in respect of the irregularities alleged against the dealer and form an opinion as to whether placing the dealer under suspension is imperative and whether such suspension will help to conduct the disciplinary enquiry in a fair manner so as to prevent the errant dealer from meddling with the enquiry and tampering the evidence of the complaint. The authorities shall also consider that if the dealer is permitted to continue his dealership pending enquiry whether there is any possibility of his continuing his misdeeds such as black- marketing the essential commodities, not properly distributing the commodities to the cardholders and thereby causing inconvenience to them etc. If the authorities apprehend that the dealer may indulge in such activities, then by giving cogent reasons it may place the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, running the risk of repetition, it must be emphasized, though under Rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 the appointing authority has power to suspend the authorization of a dealer pending disciplinary enquiry, however such power shall be exercised with utmost care and circumspection. 11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension 1 2020 SCC Online AP 755 4 JS,J W.PNo.6652/2025 pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 5. The variation, even if accepted as true, is not so high as to immediately suspend the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry. That apart, the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not yet been duly considered. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, however, the enquiry may go on by following due procedure of law. 6. In the result the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2025. The respondent authorities are at liberty to conduct enquiry by following due procedure of law, without being influenced by the observations in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 21.03.2025 sj 5 JS,J W.PNo.6652/2025 99 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO:6652/2025 Date:21.03.2025 sj