APHC010234492019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10416/2019 Between: 1. SMT. N. NIRMALA,, W/O. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. RATION SHOP DEALER, R/O. D.NO. 24/6, ADAVIKAMMAPALLE, SETTIPALLI VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLE MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 516 215. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, SAMBEPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADA DISTRICT. 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 an appropriate particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 respondent in suspending the authorisation of the petitioner vide Ref. No. 1(4)/601/2019, dated 18- Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoti, dated 05 unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(i)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order in Ref. No. 1(4)/601/2019, dated 18 passed by the 2nd respondent herein suspending the FP Shop authorisation of the petitioner herein IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10416/2019 SMT. N. NIRMALA,, W/O. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. RATION SHOP DEALER, R/O. D.NO. 24/6, ADAVIKAMMAPALLE, SETTIPALLI VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLE MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 516 215. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE JOINT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA R, SAMBEPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADA 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 an appropriate writ, or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 respondent in suspending the authorisation of the petitioner vide Ref. No. -07-2019 basing on the 6-A report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoti, dated 05-07-2019 is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(i)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and et aside the order in Ref. No. 1(4)/601/2019, dated 18 passed by the 2nd respondent herein suspending the FP Shop authorisation IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA SMT. N. NIRMALA,, W/O. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. - RATION SHOP DEALER, R/O. D.NO. 24/6, ADAVIKAMMAPALLE, SETTIPALLI VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLE MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE JOINT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA R, SAMBEPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADA 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 writ, or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 respondent in suspending the authorisation of the petitioner vide Ref. No. A report of the Enforcement 2019 is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(i)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and et aside the order in Ref. No. 1(4)/601/2019, dated 18-07-2019 passed by the 2nd respondent herein suspending the FP Shop authorisation 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 in Ref. No. 1(4)/601/2019, dated 18-07- 2019 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) 3 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorisation of the petitioner vide Ref. No.1(4)/601/2019, dated 18.07.2019 basing on the 6-A report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar Rayachoti dated 05.07.2019 is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(i) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order in Ref No.1(4)/601/2019, dated 18.07.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent herein suspending the FP Shop authorisation of the petitioner herein and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1147019 on 20.09.2012 and the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint either from the card holders or from the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, on 05.07.2019, the inspecting officials conducted inspection over the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain irregularities and thereafter, recommended for registration of 6-A case under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also seized the stock available in the petitioner’s fair price shop and handed over the same to the adjacent fair price shop dealer. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that, as per the panchanama dated 05.07.2019, the entire seized stock and variation is within the permissible limits and as such, there is no question of irregularities being committed by the petitioner. 4 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, only basing upon the report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoty, dated 05.07.2019, the 2nd respondent placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension vide proceedings dated 18.07.2019. Challenging which, the present writ petition was filed. 6. On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 18.07.2019, it can be observed that, except referring to the 6-A report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoty, dated 05.07.2019, there is no separate report, initiating disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner and even otherwise no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. But, the 2nd respondent straightaway suspended the petitioner’s authorization, pending finalization of the disciplinary case. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of the instructions of Tahsildar i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, wherein, it is admitted that the present impugned proceedings have been passed only basing upon the 6-A report. But, there is no separate report for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also stated that, as on today no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents in pursuance of the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 18.07.2019. 5 10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the common order, dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. The relevant portion of the said order, reads as under: 9. …When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. 10. As per Clause ‘q’ of Circular Memo issued by Commissioner, Civil Supplies in No.21/100/2015-AD.1 PP&CCS dated 28.09.2015, proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are liable for confiscation or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorization to be issued, based on report. In view of memo and requirement under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order passed by second respondent cannot be sustained, consequently the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20 (i) of Control Order, 2018. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside proceedings in SR.No.130/2019-S5, dated 23-12-2019, passed by second respondent, suspending the authorization of petitioner, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also allowed, in terms of the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and the impugned proceedings of the 2nd 6 respondent dated 18.07.2019 are set-aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s authorization, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, following due procedure as contemplated under the Act. 12. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 to this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 08.09.2025 MDP