APHC010343052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ^ AT AMARAVATI / (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER \o TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17459 OF 2025 s A Between: Velamala Lakshmi, W/o Rajarao, Aged about 42 years, Occ; Dealer Dharmavaram Gram Panchayat, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, CSI Department, Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, AP. 2. The District Collector (CS), Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 3. The Joint Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 5. Tahsildar, Etcherla Mandal,Srikakulam District 6. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, District, 7. The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Etcherla Mandal,Srikakulam District Food Secretariat Etcherla Mandal,Srikakulam ...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 an appropriate, writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent District in Qivisional Officer, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam vide Rc No. 1259/2025 CS dt. 25.06.2025 suspending 4/Revenue issuipgv proceedings Sferization of petitioner Fair Price Shop No. 0108940 of Dharmavaram the au^ Vilia^' Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District without following the legal procedure, without considering the explanation, without period of suspension. without furnishing inspection report and report of the Tahsildar with their without reference to further action, without pending enquiry, evidences, without application of mind, violating Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India illegal arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently to set- aside the same. as lA NO: 1 OFjOji 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 of the Respondent No.4 / Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.No. 1259/2025 CS dt.25.06.2025 by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as F P Shop Dealer of F P Shop No 0108940 of Dharmavaram Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M CHIRANJEEVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 6:GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and 7: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010343052025 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] Has TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17459/202^ Between: 1.VELAMALA LAKSHMI. W/0 RAJARAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC DEALER, DHARMAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CSI DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5.TAHSILDAR, ETCHERLA MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 6.THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 7.THE MANDAL REVENUE MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, CIVIL SUPPLIES, ETCHERLA INSPECTOR, ETCHERLA ...RESPONDENT(S): ) VS,J W. P.No.l 7459 of2025 Petition under Article 226 of the circumstances stated i pleased to issue in the affiriavif ''i® the authorization of petitioner Fair Prirp qn m ^ ‘ 2^ 0®-2025 suspending vi«„, a*.M. „u Pioceoure, Without considering the explanation with “7 '“"“"''"'a ‘®® legal Without furnishing inspection report a d report a' evidences, without reference to further r ^ Tahsiidar with their without application of mind, vioiating ArticleZ'Tnd ?'f7' ^eqaii-y. as illegal, arbitrary, against the orinrinZ , ° constitution of India ■ to set- aside the sLe ' ®nd consequently jA NO: 1 OF 7noci Petition under Section 151 ppp in the affidavit filed in support of the petZn^the" h" stated pleased to suspend the operation of the Order of Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc Mo roZ'1“^!-, N°-4 directing the respondents to continue the at.25.06.2025 by Shop No 0108940 of Dharmavaram y..f ^ Shop Dealer of FP District, pending disposal of the Writ PeZ^n^' ®"''®''ulam Counsel for the Petitioner: 1M CHIRANJEEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: one \ / 3 VS,J W.P.No.l7459of2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief;- an appropriate, writ, direction or order, more particuiarly one in the nature of vVrit of Mandamus declaring thn action of the Respondent ....issue No. 4/Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakuiam Division, Srikakuiam District in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.1259/2025 CS dated 25.06.2025 suspending the authorization of petitioner Fair Price Shop No. 0108940 of Dharmavaram Village, Etcherla Mandat, Srikakuiam District without following the legal procedure, without considering the explanation, without period of suspension, without furnishing inspection report and report of the Tahsildar with their evidences, without reference to further action, without pending enquiry, without application of mind, violating Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently to set- aside the same....” Brief facts of the case as follows; a) The petitioner was appointed as permanent dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0108940 of Dharmavaram Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakuiam District, in the 2009. Since the date of her appointment, she has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities, b) While the matter being so, due to political pressure, the 4^'" respondent issued a show-cause notice on 06.03.2025, alleging certain irregularities and directing the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her, within one week from the date of receipt of the said notice. In response, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 11.06.2025. without considering the said explanation, and without specifying the 2. year However, 4 vs,j y W.P.No.l7459of2025 period of suspension nor furnishing the inspection report or the Tahsildar’s report, nor conducting any pending enquiry nor applying proper mind, the 4*'' respondent issued proceedings dated 25.06.2025, suspending the petitioner’s authorization. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the petition. present writ 3. Heard learned counsel for the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant 4. petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition and further argued that though the petitioner in her explanation has gave specific reasons for the violations pointed out in the show-cause notice, the respondent authorities did not give cogent reasons for not considering the explanation submitted by the should not have suspended the petitioner’s authorization invariably. Hence, requested to allow the present petition. petitioner and 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Supplies supported the action of the respondents in ali aspects and requested to dismiss the writ petition. Pleader for Civil 6. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 25.06.2025 the 4 respondent has found certain irregularities but, nowhere in the proceedings the 4'^ respondent has suspending the authorization. Without dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted admittedly committed by the petitioner, assigned the reasons for assigning any reasons as to his by the petitioner, the 4*^ respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. 5 VS,J VJ.P.No.17459 of 2025 0 Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others', it was observed as under; quasi judicial Rpficifvinq the need for 11. Since the appointing authority acts as a authority, he must giv^ cogent reasons. placing tr.. ao.ipr under suspension£ending.dlsci£linaQLen^ The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority - .. .•!.! — UJo r*r\mmittinn reveals a prima-facie case agarnsttne pei,iiu,,e, v. .... certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shM Qatisfaction of the Officer but it not just signify the subiectiye^ c^hniild demonstrate compulsive need for suspension dealer, invariably require his , It should be noted that not all follies of a irv. Therefore, appointing authority must suspension pending enquiry, 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.^ . State of Andhra Pradesh^, under Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs similar circumstances has conclusion should reflect in the order and it is quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the i . categorically held that the reasons for coming to the is not sufficient to say for the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. , when the authorization of a fair price shop considering her explanation, the writ 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was efficacious alternative remedy by way Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Under similar circumstances 8. dealer was suspended even without petition (W.P.No.18006 of dismissed on the ground that there is an \ of a revision before the District shop dealer preferred a writ ^ 2020 see Online AP 755 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) ^5. W.P.No.l7459of2025'f 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 considprptin n fnr orvoWi ii^+i 1^1 enquiry. 9. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 4‘^ respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the potitionor, as such, the same has to be set-aside. a show cause shall issue a 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 25.06.2025 are set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting in the light of the observations made herein. There proper enquiry shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand SdPB. PRASADA RAO assistant registrar closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, State of Andhra Pradesh, CSI Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, AP. 2. The District Collector (CS), Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. Secretariat Buildings, 3. The Joint Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 5. Tahsildar, Etcherla Mandal,Srikakulam District 6. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies District, Etcherla Mandal,Srikakulam 7. The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Etcherla Mandal,Srikakulam District 8. One CC to Sri. M Chiranjeevi Advocate [OPUC] 9. TwoCCsto GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies High Court of Andhra Pradesh 10. [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies GSC t HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 \ ORDER WP NO. 17459 OF 2025 2 3 SEP 2025 ^s,CuiTentS«ctiojj^ o ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS