APHC010327232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16626/2025 Between: 1. SRI VINAYAKA SELF HELP GROUP, , REP. BY ITS MEMBER SMT. A. SASI KALA, W/O A. VENU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 1037045, RESIDING AT D. NO. 3-80, ETAVAKILI VILLAGE, PUNGANURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANER DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PUNGANURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. SMT S SRAVANI, W/O S. YUGANDAR, AGED UNKNOWN, ETAVAKILI VILLAGE, PUNGANURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Roc. 2 VS,J W.P.No.16626 of 2025 E/1479/2025 dated 25.06.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 1037045, situated at Etavakili Village, Punganuru Mandal, Chittoor District, and pass such IA 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 may be pleased suspend the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Roc. E/1479/2025 dated: 25.06.2025, by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price dealer for shop no. 1037045 situated at Etavakili Village, Punganuru Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S PARINEETA 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.16626 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Roc.E/1479/2025 dated 25.06.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No.1037045, situated at Etavakili Village, Punganuru Mandal, Chittoor District …” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1037045, situated at Etavakili Village, Punganuru Mandal, Chittoor District. Since the date of her appointment, she has been discharging her duties without any complaints from anybody. 3. While the matter being so, surprisingly, on 10.06.2025, the inspecting officials inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. During the said inspection, they found certain shortages of fortified rice, ragi and ragi powder. Basing on the report of the inspecting officials, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.06.2025, framing four charges, for which, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation on 23.06.2025, denying the allegations against her. It is further submitted that even on earlier occasion, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 19.09.2024, to which, the petitioner submitted a valid explanation, and upon due consideration, the said charges were dropped. 4 VS,J W.P.No.16626 of 2025 4. It is further submitted that, the very issuance of the show-cause notice against the petitioner is solely based on the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which is contrary to the Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018. The 2nd respondent has failed to file the mandatory disciplinary report as contemplated under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018. The failure to comply with this statutory requirement renders the proceedings initiated against the petitioner vitiated in the eye of law. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 25.06.2025, appointed the 4th respondent as a temporary dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1037045, which is contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 as well as the binding judgments rendered by this Court, which categorically hold that a temporary dealer cannot be replaced by another temporary dealer. Therefore, challenging the impugned proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of hearing, has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 08.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.500 of 2020, wherein this Court set aside the impugned proceedings of suspension of the authorization of the petitioner therein on the ground that the same is contrary to Clause 20(i) of the Control Order. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as the matter is squarely covered by the said 5 VS,J W.P.No.16626 of 2025 order, the impugned order in the present writ petition is required to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. A perusal of the order dated 08.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.500 of 2020 would show that this Court has considered a similar issue and examined the requirement under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018 and held as under: “7. …..In view of specific contention, it is necessary to advert to Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, and the same is extracted hereunder: “The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions and authorization.” It appears from Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, two separate reports are required to be submitted by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and proceedings under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act. 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 the petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control 6 VS,J W.P.No.16626 of 2025 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.” ….Hence, I find that passing order, based on the report filed by Tahsildar, Santhabommali for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C. Act as well as initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is a serious illegality and contrary to Control Order, 2018.” 8. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, this Court allowed the writ petition filed against the order of the suspension of authorization by declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018. 9. In the instant case also, it is evident from the impugned proceedings that, based on the 6-A proceedings under Section E.C. Act, the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop kept under suspension. Thus, in the absence of a separate report, as required to be filed by the inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner in terms of Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018, issuance of the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner is unjustified. 10. Accordingly, following the order dated 08.01.2020, passed in W.P.No.500 of 2020, this Writ Petition is also allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 VS,J W.P.No.16626 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :02.09.2025. KGR