V APHC010410532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TV'^/ENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21308 OF 2025 Between: ^J/lviadhavi, W/o. T. Suresh, Aged about 45 years DhoneTown, Nandyal District Andhra Pradesh. R/o. PPR Nagar, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, ' Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. 3. The District Collector Civil Supplies, Nandyal District, Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone Division, Dhone, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Tahsildar, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one Proceedings vide R.C. in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the No.D/CS/396/2025 dated 1-7.05.2025 issued by the 4 Respondent cancelling / , th0 authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No. 1385071, phone Town as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No. 1385071, Dhone Town. / / lANO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Proceedings Rc. No.D/CS/396/2025 dated: 17.05.2025 issued by the 4*^ Respondent, and permit the petitioner to continue as FPS dealer for Shop No. 1385071, Dhone Town, Kurnool pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: g APHC010410532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21308/2025 Between: 1.T MADHAVI, W/0. T. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. R/0. PPR NAGAR, DHONETOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL, ANDHRA PRADESH 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE DIVISION, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5.THE TAHSILDAR, DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings vide 2 R C. No.D/CS/396/2025 i cancelling the authorization of the Shop No-. 1385071, Dhone Town , 14 and 21 of the Constitution respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner deaier for Shop No. 1385071, Dhone Town and jA NO: 1 OF in .he^rSi^C fntp^rt luh" circumstances stated Pleased to suspendThrone,atl of IT p"' " dated: 17.05.2025 issued by the 4TH ^°-D/CS/396/2025 to continue as FPS dealer for Shop No “sSSTi^^DhOT "’t pending disposal of the Writ Petition Ld nass ’ ^ dated 17.05.2025 i - issued by the 4 Respondent petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for as Illegal, arbitrary and violative of 1 of India and Articles consequently direct the as Fair Price Shop pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ■ • - 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.21308 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings vide R.C.No.D/CS/396/2025 dated 17.05.2025 issued by the 4'^ Respondent cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No. 1385071, Dhone Town as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No .1385071, Dhone Town and pass such order or orders... ” The petitioner herein was appointed as fair price shop dealer to Shop No.1385071, Dhone Town on temporary basis by the 4^^ respondent. While the matter stood thus, on 07.04.2025, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village 2. Revenue Inspector, Dhone, have inspected the petitioner’s shop in his absence and found shortage of 525 kgs of fortified rice. Basing on the letter dated 08.04;'2025 submitted by the 5^^ respondent, the 4^*^ respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.04.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner, in response to which, the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 21.04.2025. In spite of the same, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4 respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 17.05.2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, respondent authorities in cancelling the authorization of the shop without considering the explanation submitted, present writ petition. Heard Ms.Ayesha Azma S, learned Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner’s fair price the petitioner has filed the 3. counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentiorrs 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 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization invariably. Hence, requested to allow the present petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Supplies supported the action of the to dismiss the writ petition. On a perusal of the i admittedly the 4**^ respondent has framed Pleader for Civil respondents in all aspects and requested 6. impugned proceedings dated 17.08.2025, two charges against the petitioner, assigned the reasons for cancelling the but, nowhere the 4**^ respondent has authd’rization. Without assigning any reasons as to his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4'^ respondent has issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., 5 4^ 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 for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enguirv. 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.” Even 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. ^ 2020 see Online AP 755 ^ 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 8. 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 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 was 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 enquiry. proper 9. 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 4*^ respondent has issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 10. - »In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 17.05.2025 are set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry 7 in the light of the observations made herein. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTiRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer -"^^ffairs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. ^ The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. 3. The District Collector Civil Supplies, Nandyal District, Nandyal, Andhra / Pradesh 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone Division, Dhone, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. ^>5. The Tahsildar, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. OneCCto Mrs. Ayesha Azma S., Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies Cnr — ip HIGH COURT k DATED;13/08/2025 \ ORDER WP NO. 21308 OF 2025 * / ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS