APHC010404052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 20643 OF 2025 Between: Badri Srinivasulu, S/o Narayana, Age 50 years, Occ: FP shop dealer for Shop No. 1337017, Muthaluru Village Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Collector (CS), Nandyal Dist., at Nandyal. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal Division, Nandyal Dist. 4. The Tahsildar, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstancesstated 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 Rc.NO.CS/1145/2025 dt:18-7-2025 suspending authorization in respect of the FP Shop No. 1337017, Muthaluru Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State the petitioner's 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 18-7-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3'’'^ respondent vide vide Rc.NO.CS/1145/2025 dt:18-7-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.1337017, Muthaluru Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010404052025 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: 20643/2025 Between; 1.BADRI SRINIVASULU, S/0 NARAYANA AGE 50 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1337017, MUTHALURU VILLAGE NANDYAL URBAN MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT GUNTUR DIST. 2.THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, NANDYAL URBAN MANDAL, NANDYAL 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 Rc.NO.CS/1145/2025 dt18-7- 2025 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of the FP Shop No.1337017, Muthaluru Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP VELAGAPUDI 2 vs,j W.P. No. 20643 of 2025 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 18-7-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass lA 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 vide Rc.NO.CS/1145/2025 dt;18-7-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.1337017, Muthaluru Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal 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.20643 ol 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is 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 Rc.NO.CS/1145/2025 dated 18.7.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the FP Shop No. 1337017, Muthaluru Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is iliegal, 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 18.7.2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual....” The petitioner was appointed as the permanent Fair Shop dealer of Shop No.1337017, Muthaluru Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 2007 by the 3'"^ respondent. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been running the Fair Price Shop without any complaint, either from the cardholders or from the respondent authorities. The petitioner’s authorization for the Fair Price Shop has been 2. extended from time to time. While the matter being so, due to change in the political scenario and at the instance of local leaders, the 4'^ respondent has submitted a report to the 3'*^ respondent on 30.05.2025, alleging that the petitioner is not residing in the village but residing at Guntur town. Accordingly, a show-cause was issued by the 3'"'^ respondent on 20.06.2025, calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven (7) days from the date of repeipt of a copy of the 3. VS,J W.P.No.20643of2025 said notice. However, the said show-cause was served on the petitioner through the local V.R.O. 11.07.2025. Immediately after receiving the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on on 16.07.2025, which was also endorsed by the respondent authorities 16.07.2025. on 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without even considering the explanation submitted by him, the 3''^ respondent has passed the impugned proceedings on 18.07.2025, suspending the petitioner’s authorization, duly alleging that he has failed to submit his explanation within stipulated time. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. On a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it can be seen that a show-cause notice was issued on 20.06.2025, in pursuance of which, admittedly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.07.2025, which was endorsed by the 3'"* respondent on the same day. But, in spite of the same, the impugned proceedings were passed by the 3^'^ respondent 18.07.2025, surprisingly noting that the petitioner had not submitted his explanation within the stipulated time. Admittedly on the impugned proceedings were passed on 18.07.2025. As on the date of passing of the impugned order, the petitioner’s explanation dated 16.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner was on record. But, instead of considering the said 5 vs,j W.P. No.20643 of2025 explanation, the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension on the sole ground that the explanation was not submitted within the stipulated time. The 3^^ respondent, instead of giving any reasoning as to whether the explanation submitted by the petitioner was satisfactory or not, has simply placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension vide impugned proceedings, which, in fact, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh\ under 7. 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. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause 8. 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. rd In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings 9. rd dated 18.07.2025 are set-aside, and the matter is remanded back to the 3 respondent for fresh consideration basing on the explanation and documents already submitted by the petitioner on 16.07.2025. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date 1 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 6 4 vs,j W.P.No.20643 of 2025 of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is neediess to say that the respondent authorities the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop till such be no order as to costs. are directed to supply the essential commodities to process is completed. There shall As a sequei, interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ' Sd/- U. SRIDBM assistant re^strar ft/ SEQTION OFFICER / //TRUE COPY// To Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra 1. The Principle Secretary Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Collector CS, Nandyal Dist., at Nandyal. Divisional Officer, Nandyal Division, Nandyal Dist. 3. The Revenue 4. The Tahsildar, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist. M SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC] SUPPLIES High Court of Andhra Pradesh 5. OneCCto SRI. M M 6. Two CCS to GP FOR CIVIL [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies PRK % HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 \ ORDER WP NO. 20643 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE WP, WITHOUT COSTS