1 VS,J WP_12035_2018 & another APHC010411392016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 12035/2018 Between: 1. SMT.P.DHANALAKSHMI, W/O.SRIDHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, (SUSPENSION), NAGIRIPADU-II FAIR PRICE SHOP, DOOR NO.1/66, NAGIRIPADU VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, Y. S .R DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY.ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R. DISTRICT, KADAPA 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPETA REVENUE DIVISION, RAJAMPETA, YSR DISTRICT 4. THE TAHASILDAR, CHITVEL MANDAL, Y.S.R.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 to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.D/237/2018, dated 16-03-2018 issued by the respondent No.3 2 VS,J WP_12035_2018 & another ordering suspension of the Fair Shop authorization issued in the petitioner favor for Nagirip II Fair Price Shop, Nagiripadu Village, Chitvel Mandal, Y.S.R District as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 proceedings in Ref.No.D/237/2018, dated 16- 03-2018 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 1534/2016 Between: 1. SMT.P.DHANALAKSHMI, W/O.SRIDHAR REDDY, OCC: FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, (SUSPENSION), NAGIRIPADU-II FAIR PRICE SHOP, DOOR NO.1/66, NAGIRIPADU VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, Y.S.R.DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R. DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPETA REVENUE DIVISION, RAJAMPETA, YSR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, CHITVEL MANDAL, Y.S.R.DISTRICT. 3 VS,J WP_12035_2018 & another ...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 toto issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.D/607/2015, dated 30-11-2015 issued by respondent No.2 ordering suspension of the Fair Shop authorization issued in petitioner favor for Nagiripadu-II Fair Price Shop, Nagiripadu Village, Chitvel Mandal, Y.S.R District as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and also the well settled legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioner under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the sane and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 450 OF 2016 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 vacate the interim orders dt. 20.01.2016, in WPMP No. 1926/16, in WP No. 1534/16 IA NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP 1926 OF 2016 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 proceedings in Ref.No.D/607/2015, dated 30-11-2015 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 4 VS,J WP_12035_2018 & another COMMON ORDER:- As the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of both the writ petitions by way of a common order, by taking W.P.No.12035 of 2018 as leading petition. 2. W.P.No.12035 of 2018 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.D/237/2018, dated 16-03-2018 issued by the respondent No.3 ordering suspension of the Fair Shop authorization issued in the petitioner favor for Nagirip II Fair Price Shop, Nagiripadu Village, Chitvel Mandal, Y.S.R District as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the same and pass....” 3. The petitioner herein was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Nagiripadu-II Fair Price shop, Nagiripadu village, Chitvel mandal, YSR district on permanent basis. 4. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent along with food inspector and mandal revenue inspector has inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain discrepancies. As such, a report was submitted to the 3rd respondent who in turn has issued a show cause notice dated 12.10.2015 to which, the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 16.11.2015. However, without considering the same, the 3rd respondent has issued proceedings dated 30.11.2015, suspending the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.1534 of 2016 wherein, 5 VS,J WP_12035_2018 & another this Court, vide order dated 20.01.2016, passed an interim order suspending the proceedings dated 30.11.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent. 5. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was continued as fair price shop dealer. While so, the 4th respondent has submitted a report dated 12.02.2018 to the 3rd respondent, basing on which, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 17.02.2018 seeking an explanation from the petitioner as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she has submitted her explanation on 22.02.2018 to the show cause notice dated 17.02.2018, without considering the same, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.03.2018 has suspended the authorization of the petitioner over the fair price shop of Nagiripadu-II fair price shop, Nagiripadu village, Chitvel manda, YSR District. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission on 10.04.2018, this Court has passed an interim order suspending the operation of the proceedings in Ref.No.D/237/2018, dated 16.03.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the present writ petition. 7. Heard Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 8. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a copy of letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Chitvel mandal, Annamayya district, dated 15.08.2025 wherein it is stated that 6 VS,J WP_12035_2018 & another even as on today, the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer of Nagiripadu-II of Nagiripadu village. 9. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 16.03.2018, admittedly nowhere the 3rd respondent has assigned the reasons for his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Without assigning any reasons as to his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others1, it was observed as under: “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 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.” 10. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 7 VS,J WP_12035_2018 & another 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. 11. 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 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside and the writ petition needs to be allowed. 12. In view of the above detailed order, W.P.No.1534 of 2016 is also liable to be allowed. 13. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings dated 30.11.2015 and 16.03.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent 8 VS,J WP_12035_2018 & another are set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry in the light of the observations made herein. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:18.08.2025. Gss