APHC010348382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17937/2025 Between: 1. RUPPA RAMA RAJU, S/O SURYA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC DEALER, RAMAJOGI PETA VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER SECRETARIAT 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, S DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, ETCHERLA MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, ETCHERLA MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, 7. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, ETCHERLA MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17937/2025 RUPPA RAMA RAJU, S/O SURYA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC DEALER, RAMAJOGI PETA VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, CSI DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM THE TAHSILDAR, ETCHERLA MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, ETCHERLA MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, ETCHERLA MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA RUPPA RAMA RAJU, S/O SURYA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC DEALER, RAMAJOGI PETA VILLAGE, ETCHERLA ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AFFAIRS, CSI DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. RIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM THE TAHSILDAR, ETCHERLA MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, ETCHERLA THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, ETCHERLA ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 topleased to issue an appropriate, writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4/Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District in issuing proceedings vide Rc No. 1258/2025 CS dt. 25.06.2025 suspending the authorization of petitioner Fair Price Shop No. 0108895 of Ramajogipeta Village, 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 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 and pass s 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the Order of the Respondent No.4 / Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.No. 1258/2025 CS dt.30.05.2025 by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as F P Shop Dealer of F P Shop No 0108895 of Ramajogipeta Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M CHIRANJEEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4/Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.1258/2025 CS dt:25.06.2025 suspending the authorization of petitioner Fair Price Shop No.0108895 of Ramajogipeta Village, 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 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 and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0108895 of Ramajogipeta Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, in the year 2007. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time and the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint from either from the card holders or from the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, on credible information, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Srikakulam, conducted surprise inspection over the petitioner’s fair price shop and found variations in the stock of fortified rice and sugar packets. Basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar on 17.05.2025, the show cause notice dated 30.05.2025 was issued by the 4th respondent to the petitioner, calling for explanation within a period of seven (7) 4 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. For which, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 05.06.2025, stating that out of 776 Kgs of rice, 750 Kgs of rice was issued to MDU operator through e-PoS machine. However, the MDU operator did not physically lift the said stock into his vehicle and additional 26 Kgs of rice was drawn using his own ration card and kept the same in the petitioner’s fair price shop. But, in spite of the said explanation, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 25.06.2025, suspending the petitioner’s authorization even without assigning any reasons as to how he is not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 17.07.2025, this Court was pleased to pass the interim order as under: A show cause notice, dated 30.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner alleging certain variations in the stock, to which, the petitioner submitted explanation on 05.06.2025. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed whereunder the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not considered in its proper perspective. In view of the same, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, dated 25.06.2025. 5. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, in support of the impugned proceedings, has stated that, though the petitioner in his explanation has 5 stated that the MDU operator has failed to lift the 750 Kgs of rice into his vehicle, as the petitioner has not produced any material evidence in support of his contention, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 8. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent dated 25.06.2025, it is an admitted fact that though the petitioner has submitted an explanation, duly stating that out of 776 Kgs of rice, 750 Kgs of rice was issued to MDU operator through e-PoS machine. However, the MDU operator did not physically lift the said stock into his vehicle and additional 26 Kgs of rice was drawn using his own ration card and kept the same in the petitioner’s fair price shop, but, in spite of the same, without application of mind and without assigning any reasons as to how he is not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4th 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 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 6 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.” 9. Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, under similar circumstances has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 10. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, 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. 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 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 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 12. 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 proper enquiry in the light of the observations made herein. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner, pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 10.09.2025 MDP