APHC010378692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 11^ MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19156 OF 2025 Between: Kurapati Subba Rao, S/o Adinarayana, Age; 79 years, Occ; F.P. Shop dealer for Shop No.0881003, Balaram Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principle Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, 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. ...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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the respondent vide Rc.No.l/1386/2025 dt 21-7-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0881003, Balaram Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure Colony, as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Distribution System (Control) Order, principles of natural justice and dt 21-7-2025 by directing the Respondents to dealer as usual. Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public 2018 apart from violation of the consequentially set aside the impugned order continue petitioner as FP Shop ► lA NO: 1 OF 2()9Fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court i Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3'“ respondent vide Rc No 1/1386/2025 dt;21-7- may be pleased to 2025 in respect of FP Shop No.0881003, Balaram Coiony, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., by continuing the petitioner as deaier as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. M. M. SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: The Court made the following order: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES / / APHC010378692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMB [3333] MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19156/2025 Between: 1.KURAPATI SUBBA RAO, S/0 ADINARAYANA AGE- 79 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP N0.0881003, BALARAM COLONY, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, 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. ...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 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.No.1/1386/2025 dt 21-7-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0881003, Balaram Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., VS,J W.P.NO.19156 of 2025 without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Controi) 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 21-7-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2n?S 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 impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No. 1/1386/2025 dt:21 ou M 2025 in respect of FP Shop No.0881003, Balaram Colony, 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 The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.19156 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be 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 respondent vide Rc.No. 1/1386/2025 dt:21-7-2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 0881003, Balaram Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Crder, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Crder, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt:21-7-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual....” 2. The petitioner herein is a permanent dealer of Fair Price Shop bearing No.08810035, Balaram Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam Distinct, since the year 1981, and has been running the said Fair Price Shop without any complaints from anyone whatsoever. The said authorization has been extended from time to time. While the matter being so, on 02.07.2025 at about 6.00 p.m., the 3. Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, along with the Food Inspector, Ongole, inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and submitted a report to the 3'^'^ respondent alleging that there was an excess of 370 kgs of PDS Forfeited rice and 9 packets of sugar (1/2 kg) available in the shop. Basing on the-inspection report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy VS,J W.P.No.l9156of2025 Tahsildar, Ongole, the 3'"^ respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 15.07.2025. framing one charge regarding variation of the stock and calling for explanation within seven days. Pursuant to the said show- cause notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 17.07.2025 stating that the excess stock belongs to the cardholders and request, the commodities were allowed to be retained in the shop, believing their version that they would collect the same in the evening. Along with his explanation, the petitioner enclosed the at their representation submitted by the cardholders, clearly indicating that, at their request only, the said stock was retained in the shop. However, without even considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the 3'”^ respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 suspending the petitioner’s shop authorization. Except for mentioning the report of the inspection authorities and extracting the petitioner’s explanation, there is no finding justifying the suspension of petitioner’s authorization. Therefore, the 3*^^ respondent, without conducting any independent enquiry, passed the impugned order solely basing on the report submitted by the enquiry team. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 VS,J W.P.No.19156 of 2025 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner 5. reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition and further argued ► that the respondent authorities ought to have given cogent reasons for not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner but should not have suspended the petitioner’s authorization invariably. Hence, requested to allow the present petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the action of the respondents in all aspects and requested to dismiss the writ petition. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2025, admittedly the 3^"^ respondent has framed one charge against the petitioner, but, nowhere it can be seen that the 3'"'^ respondent has 7. considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and that he was not satisfied. Without assigning any reasons as to his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3'"^ 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 others^, it was observed as under; “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need 2020 see Online AP 755 33 6 VS,J W.P.No.19156 of 2025 for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reyeals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby yiolating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not lust signify the subiectiye satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsiye need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, inyariably 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.” Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^, 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. 8. 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 3'^ respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2025 are set-aside. Further, the 3'^'^ respondent 10. ^2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 VS,J W.P.No.l9156of2025 is directed to reconsider the explanation submitted by the petitioner 17.07.2025 and to pass a reasoned order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. on As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ASsilrili? ASSISTANT RE^TRAR secIt^officer //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principle Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. The Collector(CS), Prakasam Dist., at Ongole. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole Division, Prakasam Dist. The Tahsildar, Ongole Town, Prakasam Dist. One CC to Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:11/08/2025 ORDER WP No.19156 OF 2025 ^ 3 0 AUG 2025 i Co is^ent Sectio|ixv5' ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS