APHC010293882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 14924/2025 Between: M. Rizwana Khatoon ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER:- 1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the Shop No.1382147, Weaker Section Colony, Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District by virtue of proceedings in RC.B356/2010, dated 21.04.2010. It is further case of the petitioner that since the date of appointment he has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any interruption and he further submits that there are no complaints against him. 2. It is further case of the petitioner that based on report dated 01.05.2025 of the 4th respondent, a show cause notice dated 05.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation with regard to excess stock i.e., 2386 kgs., of PDS Rice and 2439 sugar packets found by the Inspection team. As the variation of stock is beyond permissible limits as per clause 29 (a) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he submitted explanation dated 08.05.2025 stating that the said excess stock was handed over to MDU Operator, who is related to the petitioner and due to ill-health of the petitioner, he handed over the said stock to MDU Operator by closing stock balance. It is further stated in the explanation the stock remained in the godown belonging to the petitioner. 4. Upon consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, the 4th respondent passed impugned order in proceedings Rc.DT(LR) 507/2025, dated 30.05.2025 whereby and whereunder cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Questioning the said order the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Perused material available on record. 7. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order under challenge was passed with prejudiced mind by relying on the report submitted by the 4th respondent. He would further submit that the 3rd respondent without giving opportunity of personal hearing passed the impugned order. 8. On perusal of the explanation dated 08.05.2025, the petitioner has stated that the stock was handed over to MDO Operator, but the same remained in the godown of the petitioner. Further, on perusal of the show cause notice, the variation of the stock is over and above permissible limit. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to substantiate his case to prove his innocence. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the petitioner handed over the stock to MDU Operator or not and the same cannot be decided in the present writ petition inasmuch as it is disputed question of fact. Normally the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court in writ jurisdiction while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view thereof, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and accordingly the same is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the petitioner may prefer appeal as provided for under clause 24 (b) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (control) order, 2018 against the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 24.06.2025 DR 177 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.14924 of 2025 Date 24.06.2024 DR