APHC010417002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0? I TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUStI TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21283 OF 2025 Between: J.Madhava Goud, S/o Madhava Rayudu Age 37 years, Occ; F.P. Shop dealer for Shop No. 1337025, Chitranipalli Village Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist. ...Petitioner AND 1. 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 4. The Tahsildar, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist. 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 pleased to issue Writ Order may be 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.CS/1224/2025 dt- 28-7-2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No, 1337025, Chitranipalli Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist. without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State «r 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 28-7-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual. dt 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 to suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent Rc.No.CS/1224/2025 dt:28-7-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1337025, Chitranipalli Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: vide APHC010417002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21283/2025 Between: 1.J.MADHAVA GOUD, S/0 MADHAVA RAYUDU AGE 37 YEARS. OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1337025, CHITRANIPALLI VILLAGE RUDRAVARAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT, 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. SECRETARY VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2.THE COLLECTOR CS. NANDYAL DIST.. AT NANDYAL. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NANDYAL DIST. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, RUDRAVARAM MANDAL. NANDYAL DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S); NANDYAL DIVISION. 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 Orders or a Direction more pleased topleased to issue Writ Order or particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1224/2025 dt- 28-7-2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No. 1337025. Chitranipalli Village. Rudravaram Mandal. Nandyal Dist.. without assigning any valid reasons and contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) without following the procedure as 2 Pradesh°s,ate 'StfeTpublir'^ributa °f Andhra'* apart from Violation of the principles (Control) Order aside the impugned order dt28-7- 202‘iT consequentially set continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as Lull TnT"® '^®=P°ndents lA NO: 1 OF , 2018 to pass Petition under Section 151 rpp in the affidavit filed in support of the n ,7'"^ circumstances stated ”•“ « rr Shop »p. .33™" 1M MM SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1GPFOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following; 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.21283 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 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1224/2025 dt- 28-7-2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No. 1337025, Chitranipalli Village, Rudravaram 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 illegal, arbitrary mala fide 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 dt28-7- 2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass....” 2. The petitioner herein is a permanent dealer of fair price shop bearing No. 1337025, Chitranipalli village, Rudravaram mandal, Nandyal district and the same is valid up to 31.03.2027. While the matter stood thus, on 09.07.2025, the Deputy Tahsitdar, Rudravaram mandal along with Village Revenue Officer, Nakkatadinne have inspected the petitioner’s shop and have found certain discrepancies in the stock with that of ground balance. On the same day, the 4 respondent has submitted a report to the O"'' respondent basing on which, a show th cause notice dated 18.07.2025 was issued calling for an explanation from the petitioner, in response to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 21.07.2025. In spite of the same, without considering the explanation submitted 4 by the petitioner, the 3'^^ respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 28.07.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop without considering the explanation submitted, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned 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 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. Hence, requested to allow the present petition. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil 5. 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 28.07.2025, admittedly the respondent has framed two charges against the petitioner, but, nowhere the 3'^^ respondent has assigned the reasons for suspending the authorization. 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: 6. 2020 see OnLine AP 755 5 “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.” 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. ) 7. 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 is liable to be set-aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings respondent is directed to reconsider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 21.07.2025 and to 9. rd dated 28.07.2025 are set-aside. Further, the 3 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 6 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER trar //TRUE COPY// To 1- The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Collector CS, Nandyal Dist., at Nandyal. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal Division, 4. The Tahsildar, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist. 5. One CC to Sri M M M Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra 7. Two CD Copies Department, Secretariat, Nandyal Dist. Pradesh [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED:12/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21283 OF 2025 01 SEP 2025 H' ^ . Current Section ^*^s£^SPaTCH€5.^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS