APHC010378302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19487/2025 Between: 1. TOTTEMPUDI THIRUPALU, S/O KOTAIAH AGE 57 YEARS, OCCF.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0881051, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DIST. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DIST., AT ONGOLE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, PRAKASAM DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DIST. 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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc. 1/783/2025 dt 13 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0881051, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19487/2025 TOTTEMPUDI THIRUPALU, S/O KOTAIAH AGE 57 YEARS, OCCF.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0881051, ONGOLE TOWN, ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DIST., AT ONGOLE. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, THE TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DIST. ...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 topleased to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc. 1/783/2025 dt 13 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0881051, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA TOTTEMPUDI THIRUPALU, S/O KOTAIAH AGE 57 YEARS, OCCF.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0881051, ONGOLE TOWN, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARIAT THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DIST., AT ONGOLE. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, ...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 topleased to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc. 1/783/2025 dt 13-5-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0881051, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide 2 and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt13-5- 2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass 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 Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc. 1/783/2025 dt: 13-5-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.0881051, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “… to issue Writ, Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.I/783/2025 dt:13.5.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0881051, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt:13.5.2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner is a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.0881051, Ongole Town, Prakasam District, being appointed in the year 1987. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time and the petitioner has lastly paid the renewal fee on 26.03.2025 and submitted the original authorization to the authorized officer through the 4th respondent. Since the date of his appointment the petitioner has been running the fair price shop without any complaints from anybody whatsoever. 3. While the matter being so, on 08.04.2025, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole-II, along with the Food Inspector, Ongole, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found variations of stock i.e., 165 Kgs of excess rice and 5 Kgs of less Jowar. Basing on the inspection report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole, to the 3rd respondent on 10.04.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.04.2025, calling for 4 explanation within seven (7) days. For which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 02.05.2025 clearly stating that, as per Clause 29 of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, he is entitled to 120 Kgs of rice as marginal variation. Further, he has explained that due to slipperiness of rice from the rice bags, the said rice is mixed with dust and stones and is not useful for personal consumption and the inspecting officials have verified the said rice and noted it as excess rice. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his explanation, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 13.05.2025, suspending the petitioner’s authorization without assigning any reasons, simply stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing and as such, a detailed enquiry is necessary basing on the available evidences. 5. On the other hand, it can be seen that though the show cause notice dated 19.04.2025 is issued for initiation of disciplinary action, calling for explanation from the petitioner as to why his authorization should not be kept under suspension, but, instead of the same, the operative portion of the said notice says as to why his authorization should not be cancelled, which is in violation of Control Order, 2018. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 5 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 13.05.2025, it is an admitted fact that though the petitioner has submitted an explanation, duly stating that, as per Clause 29 of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution Control Order, 2018, he is entitled to 120 Kgs of rice as marginal variation and further, that due to slipperiness of rice from the rice bags, the said rice is mixed with dust and stones and is not useful for personal consumption. 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 3rd 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 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.” 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 6 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 3rd respondent 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 13.05.2025 are set-aside. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner, till the disciplinary proceedings are finalized. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 16.09.2025 MDP