APHC010312992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i 0 TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY^r TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15631 OF 2025 Between; P. Sridevi, W/o. Krishana Reddy, Age 43 years, occupation Fair Price Dealer, F.P.Shop.No.0830022, District. Anikepalli Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle Secretary(Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies), AP Secretariate, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The District Joint Collector Civil Supplies, Ongole, Prakasam District 3. The District Supplies Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District 5. The Tahsildar, Marripudi Mandal, Praksam District 6. The Food Inspector, Podili, Prakasam District ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4^^ respondent issuing impugned proceedings Rc.E/628/2025, dated 28.05.2025 by cancellation of .■6 dealership of the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0830022, Anikepalli Village, Marripudi District, without there being any valid arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice 14, 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and also State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, violation of orders of the Honourable High Court in WA 139 of 2025 dt. 18.03.2025, W.P.No.1425 of 2025 dt.27.01.2025 and Mandal, Prakasam reason to the petitioner as illegal, and violative of Articles violative of Andhra Pradesh consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner for the dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0830022, Anikepalli Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 20?.*; Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities No.0830022, Anikepalli Village, Marripudi Mandal suspending the impugned proceedings of 4*^ i dated 28.05.2025 pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUNDALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos,1 to 6: The Court made the following order: praying that in the circumstances stated to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Prakasam District, by respondent in Rc. E/628/2025, SIVA PRASADA REDDY GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES APHC010312992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15631/2025 Between: 1.P SRIDEVI, W/0 KRISHANA REDDY, AGE 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION FAIR PRICE DEALER, F.P.SHOP.N0.0830022, ANIKEPALLI VILLAGE, MARRiPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY(CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES),AP SECRETATARIATE,VELAGAPUDI,GUNTUR DIST. 2.THE DISTRICT JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3.THE DISTRICT SUPPLIES OFFICER, ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI,PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5.THETAHSILDAR, MARRIPUDI MANDAL,PRAKSAM DISTRICT 6.THE FOOD LNSPECTOR, PODILI,PRAKASAM 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 2 TCDSJ W.P. No. 15631 of 2025 be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent issuing impugned proceedings Rc. E/628/2025, dated 28.05.2025 by cancellation of dealership of the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0830022, Anikepalli Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, without there being any valid reason to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, violation of orders of the Honourable High Court in WA 139 of 2025 dt. 18.03.2025, W.P.No.1425 of 2025 dt.27.01.2025 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner for the dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0830022, Anikepalli Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0830022, Anikepalli Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, by suspending the impugned proceedings of 4th respondent in Rc.E/628/2025, dated 28.05.2025 pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 TCDS,J W.P.No.15631 of,2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15631 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer for shop No.0830022 of Anikepalli village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. It is the further case of the petitioner that she has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint. It is further stated that an inspection was conducted in the fair price shop of the petitioner on 17.11.2024 and found certain variations in respect of the stock maintained by her. After drawing panchanama, a report dated 19.11.2024 was issued to the 4*'^ respondent to initiate disciplinary action against her. Initially a show cause notice was issued calling for explanation as to why her authorization shall not be cancelled. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that she submitted explanation and without considering the same, the 4*'^ respondent by order dated 27.12.2024 suspended her authorization pending enquiry. It is further case of the petitioner that questioning the said order of suspension, she preferred a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.No.1425 of 2025. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.01.2025, whereunder the suspension order dated 27.12.2024 was set aside by directing the 4^*^ respondent to conduct the enquiry as expeditiously as possible according to law and dispose of the matter 4 TCDSJ W.P.No.15631 of202S t within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It is the specific case of the petitioner that despite granting of two months’ time, the 4^'' respondent did not choose to complete the enquiry. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter a show cause notice dated 25.03.2025 was issued asking the petitioner to submit explanation. To which, the petitioner has submitted explanation dated 02.04.2025. On perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, except stating that she has not committed any irregularities as alleged in the show cause notice, nothing is placed before the authorities to substantiate her contention. Taking into consideration of the same, the 4^^ respondent passed impugned order cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Questioning the said order dated 28.05.2025, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the material available on record. 3. On perusal of the show cause notice and the impugned order, it is specifically alleged by the respondents that there is a stock variation in the fair price shop of the petitioner. On perusal of the explanation dated 02.04.2025, it is contended by the petitioner that 5 TCDS,J W.P.No.15631 of2025 the Food Inspector has obtained signatures of the petitioner on blank papers and falsely submitted a report stating that there are stock variations in the petitioner’s shop. It is further stated that the stock variation was occurred in view of the fact that she received less stock due to technical glitches of e-Pos Machine. The explanation offered by the petitioner is not supported by any documentary evidence. If at all there are any glitches in the e-Pos machine, the same should have been informed to the appointing authority. Admittedly, in the present case, no such information given by the petitioner and the same is recorded while passing the impugned order by the 4**^ respondent. In the absence of any material, the contention of the petitioner cannot be believed. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 03.04.2025, the 4th respondent was not present in the office, so, therefore, the alleged date of personal hearing conducted on the said day is nothing but false. He would further submit that she was not provided the opportunity of cross examination of all witnesses putforth against him. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not placed anything bn record to substantiate her contention that she received less quantity of commodities. On the contrary, it is stated in the explanation that the less quantity was occurred due to the technical glitches of the e- Pos machine, this Court is not in agreement with the contention 6 TCDS.J W.P.No.15631 of 2025 % raised by the petitioner inasmuch as if at all the e-Pos machine is not in working condition, nothing prevented the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the respondents. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Further the respondent is conducted personal hearing on 03.04.2025. 4. In view of the disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention, the petitioner may file appeal as against the impugned order, if she is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// drfeN OFFICER SE To, 1. One CC to Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] i 2. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 ORDER WP No.15631 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS