APHC010167742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8705/2025 Between: 1. B MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S/O.B.THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. FAIR SHOP DEALER SHOP NO.1349041, KAMALAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MALKAPURAM MANDAL, DHONE MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY ITS.. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, NANDHYAL DISTRICT, NANDHAYALA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDHYAL DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDA, ONE MANDAL, NANDHAYAL DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DHONE MANDAL, NANDHAYAL DISTRICT. 6. SRI KALLURI LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O.K.VENKATESWARLU, AGE IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC. TEMPORARY FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, KAMALAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O. MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, DHONE MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.8705 of 2025 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.CSD/513/2024, dated 25.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-establish ed legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as fair price shop dealer and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Rc.No.CS/D/513/2024, dated 25.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.8705 of 2025 Order: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.CS/D/513/2024, dated 25.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as fair price shop dealer.…” 2. Brief facts of the case are follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1349041 of Kamlapuram Village, H/o Malkapuram Mandal, Dhone Mandal, Nandhyal District in the year 2006. Since his appointment, the petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that, from the date of his appointment, he has been supplying the essential commodities to the cardholders with there being any complaint either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities. b) While the matter being so, on 03.10.2024 the 5th respondent along with his subordinates conducted an inspection of the petitioner’s shop and found certain variations in the stock. Based on this inspection, the 4th respondent/Tahsildar, Dhone submitted a report. Relying on the said report, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 08.10.2024, calling for 4 VS,J W.P.No.8705 of 2025 an explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of said notice as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. c) On the same day i.e., 08.10.2024, the 3rd respondent also issued proceedings suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry, based on the report of the 4th respondent, on the ground that the petitioner has contravened Clause 29(a) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as there was more than 1.5 % variation in the stock found at the ground level. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.23165 of 2024 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 20.01.2025, which reads as under: “However, since the enquiry is not completed even after the lapse of more than 90 days from the date of passing the impugned order and the said order is not for any specified period i.e., for an indefinite period, it cannot be allowed to continue forever. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to pass final order by holding the enquiry as per law within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the order of suspension of the authorization of the petitioner dated 18.10.2024 gets set aside without any further order.” d) Upon receipt of the orders of this Court, the petitioner submitted a copy of the same to the 3rd respondent and requested restoration of the fair price shop in his favour. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent again issued a fresh show-cause notice dated 12.03.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.03.2025. 5 VS,J W.P.No.8705 of 2025 e) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without properly considering the explanation submitted by him and conducting a proper enquiry as required under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 25.03.2025, whereby the petitioner’s authorization was terminated. Further, by the same order, the 3rd respondent appointed the 6th respondent as a temporary fair price shop dealer for the smooth functioning of the Public Distribution System. Aggrieved by the aid impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and learned counsel for 6th respondent. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 24.04.2025, this Court passed the following interim order: “…there shall be interim suspension of the proceedings, dated 25.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent until further orders.” 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, it can be observed that except referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the statements of one K.V.Upendera, a member of the inspection team and one Mr.M.Hanumanthu, Village Revenue Officer, Malkapuram Village, Dhone Mandal, no other witness was examined with regard to the alleged stock variations found in the petitioner’s Fair Price shop. When the respondents have found certain variations in the petitioner’s shop which are beyond the permissible limit, the respondents ought to have examined the 6 VS,J W.P.No.8705 of 2025 cardholders and other independent witnesses before passing the impugned order, and as well as assign appropriate reasons as the same is lacking, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. In that regard, the Judgment in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , under similar circumstances, has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 7. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 1 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 VS,J W.P.No.8705 of 2025 8. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings terminating the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2025. Further, the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent is directed to conduct enquiry by giving a fresh notice to the petitioner as well as an opportunity of hearing. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, as the petitioner has been continued in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on 21.04.2025, the petitioner shall continue until finalization of the enquiry by the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:17.09.2025 KGR