APHC010387252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 20192/2025 Between: 1. M VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. M. NALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. H.NO. 3-125, PYALAKURTHY VILLAGE, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTORCS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.DT(LR) 809/2025, dated 24.07.2025, in suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry of fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District basing on the 6-A report issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary 2 VS,J W.P.No.20192 of 2025 and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District by suspending the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.DT(LR) 809/2025, dated 24.07.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.20192 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.DT(LR) 809/2025, dated 24.07.2025, in suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry of fair price shop dealer to Shop No.1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District basing on the 6-A report issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1319037 at Pylakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District, by the 3rd respondent vide orders dated 28.06.2010, and thereafter his authorization has been renewed from time to time for every two years and the same is subsisting till 31.03.2027. 3. While the matter being so, on 04.07.2025, the respondent officials conducted a surprise visit to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and have found a variation of 140 kgs of PDS stock, which is beyond 1.5 % variation. Subsequently, 6-A case under E.C. Act was registered against the petitioner and the entire stock was seized by the officials. On 10.07.2025, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the said notice. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.07.2025 to the 3rd respondent, stating that he had distributed rice to the 4 VS,J W.P.No.20192 of 2025 card holders and during distribution their fingerprints were not registered in the e-pos Machine, and that the said variation occurred solely due this error in the e-pos machine. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that, without even considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has vide impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2025, suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry, which in fact is based on the 6-A report submitted by the 4th respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. On a perusal of the show-cause notice dated 10.07.2025, it can be seen that during the course of surprise visit conducted by the respondent officials, they have noticed 140 kgs of PDS rice less on the ground, and the said variation is beyond the permissible limit as per Clause 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. In fact the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 17.07.2025, duly explaining the reasons for such variation, and has specifically stated that as the server was not functioning properly, fingerprints of the cardholders could not be registered. But, however, on perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2025, it can be seen that the 3rd respondent has failed to assign any reasoning with respect to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, except stating that, as per Clause 8(4) of APSTPDS (Control) Orders, 2018, “The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest 5 VS,J W.P.No.20192 of 2025 or on suo-motu or on receipt of Complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause”. 7. In view of the fact that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, without assigning any reasons, this Court feels it appropriate to set aside the impugned order that placed the petitioner’s dealership under suspension, and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is needless to say that the respondent authorities shall continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.08.2025 KGR