I APHC010232222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11955 OF BE Between: Sareddy Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 65years, Occupation. F. P. Shop Dealer, R/o Sivapuramvillage, VinukondaMandal Palnadu District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District. Civil ...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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order Rc.No.1279/2024-G dated 06-03-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide. lA NO: 1 OF 202fi 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 , as suspend the impugned order Rc.No.1279/2024-G dated 06-03-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010232222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11955/2025 Between: 1.SAREDDY VENKATA SUBBA REDDY. S/0 KOTI REDDY. AGED 65YEARS, OCCUPATION. F. P. SHOP DEALER, R/0 SIVAPURAMVILLAGE.VINUKONDAMANDAL,PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3.THETAHSILDAR, VINUKONDAMANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S): 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order Rc.No.l279/2024-G dated 06- 03-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide and pass lA 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 suspend the impugned order Rc.No.1279/2024-G dated 06-03- ' 2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1.D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 0'' ORDER:- The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 where under the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0743035, Sivapuram Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District was suspended pending enquiry. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer on permanent basis by the respondent No.2. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that the respondent No.3 inspected the shop of the petitioner on 09.02.2025 and found certain variations. Based on the report dated 10.02.2025, a show cause notice dated 13.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why the dealership of the petitioner shall not be cancelled. Upon receipt of the same. the petitioner submitted explanation dated 24.02.2025, stating that at the time of inspection, certain card holders having received the essential commodities intentionally kept the same in the premises of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that immediately the respondent No.3 inspected the shop and found variations. After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed where under the authorization of the petitioner was suspended. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the explanation offered by him was not at all considered in its proper perspective by the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would submit that except stating that the stocks received by the card holders were kept in the premises of the petitioner, the writ petitioner failed to mention the names of the card holders who kept the same. He would further submit that there is no truth in the explanation offered by the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. It is further stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that the enquiry could not be completed within the time stipulated in view of the administrative contingencies. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the order of suspension was passed on 06.03.2025, as per Clause 8(4)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Crder, 2018, the respondent No.2 shall complete the enquiry within a period of 90 days. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Boya Dasthagiramma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary and others^, where under it was held that without deciding the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner and keeping them under suspension under the guise of pending enquiry for an unreasonable period would definitely violates the right 4. 5. 6. 7. '(2022) 6 ALD55 5 the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the source of income for survival of him and his family is the commission that he gets by running the fair price shop. It was further held that the enquiry and appropriate decision as to why to cancel the authorization or otherwise of the petitioner within reasonable period. He strenuously contend that, in view of the above judgment, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Coming to the case on hand, it is clear that the impugned order of suspension was passed on 06.03.2025. Further on perusal of Clause 8(4)(ii) of the Control Orders 2018, wherein it is stated that the appointing authority 8. shall dispose the disciplinary case filed against the fair price shop dealers as early as possible preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of filing. In the present case, three (03) months period was over by 05.06.2025. It is represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that, in view of the transfer of officers in the Department, the enquiry could not be completed. Having considered the submissions made by both the counsel, without going into the merits of the case,this Court feels that, it is appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition, directing the respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry within a period of one (01) month from today. It is needless to mention, in the event of failure to complete the said enquiry within 9. one (01) month, the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 shall standsuspended. With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed 10. of.There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// P- ^ 'section officer To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District. 4. One CC to Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. ssb ( ^ ' L HIGH COURT DATE 0:02/07/2025 ORDER WP No.11955 OF 2025 15 JUL 2025 ^ . Current Secnon * ^ o to DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS