APHC010417022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ' AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 3^ Hi? / TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21268 OF 2025 / / Between; M Anjani Gurappa, S/o Venkateswarlu Age 30 years, Occ: F.P. Shop dealer for Shop No. 1337015, Nakkaladinne Village Rudravaram Mandal Dist. Nandyal ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. The Collector (CS), Nandyal Dist., at Nandyal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal Division, Nandyal Dist. The Tahsildar, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...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 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No. 1337015, Nakkaladinne Village, Rudravaram Mandal, any valid reasons and without following the procedure 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt 5-8-2025 Nandyal Dist., without assigning as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, of Andhra Pradesh State arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt. 5-8-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual. 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 suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt 5-8-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1337015, Nakkaladinne Village, Rudravaram 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 Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: dAPHCOI 0417022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] 03^ TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21268/2025 Between; 1 M ANJANl GURAPPA, S/0 VENKATESWARLU AGE 30 YEARS, OCC FpToP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1337015, NAKKALADINNE VILLAGE RUDRAVARAM MANDAL, NANDYA(_ DIST. ...PETITIONER AND ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, : DIST. COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. revenue DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, 2.THE 3.THE NANDYAL DIST. 4.THETAHSILDAR RUDRAVARAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...RESPONDENT{S): order Issued by the 3rd respondent vide CS/1280 2025 dt 5 8 2025 valid reasons and without following the procedure as Public Distribution System (Control) assigning any contemplated under AP State Targeted 2 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. 5-8- 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 Fligh Court may be pleased pleased Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt 5- 8-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1337015, Nakkaladinne Village, Rudravaram 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 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.21268 of 2025 1 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief;- . ..fo /ssue 1/l/r/f Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the nature of Writ the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt 5-8-2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No. 1337015, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without Nakkaladinne Village, assigning any valid reasons contemplated (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt. 5-8- 2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as and without following the procedure as under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System and contrary to 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural usual, and pass ... The petitioner herein is a permanent dealer of fair price shop bearing Rudravaram mandal, Nandyal district and the While the matter stood thus, on 09.07.2025, the mandal along with Village Revenue Officer, 2. No. 1337015, Nakkaladinne village same is valid up to 31.03.2027. Deputy Tahsildar, Rudravaram Nakkaladinne have inspected the petitioner’s shop and have pointed out certain non-distribution of sugar to the cardholders for the month of July, violations viz.. board and rude behavior of the petitioner with the respondent has submitted a report to the notice dated 25.07.2025 was 2025, not exhibiting stock cardholders. On the same day, the 4 3^'^ respondent basing on which, a show cause th 4 issued calling for an explanation from the petitioner, in response to which, the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 28.07.2025. In spite of the same, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3 respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 05.08.2025 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. Heard Mr. M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 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 invariably. Hence, requested to allow the present petition. rd 3. 4. 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 05.08.2025, admittedly the respondent has framed three 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 5. 6. 5 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 for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinarv 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 j I i 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. 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 respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. ^ 2020 see Online AP 755 ^ 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 6 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 05.08.2025 are set-aside. Further, the 3'^'^ respondent is directed to reconsider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 28.07.2025 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU , ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. The Collector (CS), Nandyal Dist., at Nandyal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal Division, Nandyal Dist. The Tahsildar, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal 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. TF ' if , HIGH COURT DATED:12/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21268 OF 2025 ^02 SEP 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS