3 • ^ S APHC010435762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22741 OF 2025 Between: Pasupuleti Padma, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Age 50 years, Occupation F.P. Shop Dealer,Shop No.0750019, R/o.Kuretiparipallem, H/o. Allavaripalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatia District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Collector, Bapatia District, Bapatia. The Joint Collector, Bapatia District, Bapatia. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Repalle Division, Repalle, Bapatia District. The Tahsildar, Repalle Mandal, Bapatia District. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Repalle Mandal, Bapatia District. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherukupalli Police Station, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatia District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ...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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Proceedings in RC No.786/2025- C, dated 31.07.2025 placing my Shop No.0750019 in Kuretivaripalem, iuthprization on Fair Price R/g.AHavaripalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal under interim suspension, without considering my detailed explanation dated 22.07.2025, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the said order dated 31.07.2025 of the 4'*^ respondent in the interest of justice. 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 Proceedings in RC NO.786/2025-C, dated 31.07.2025 of the 4*^ respondent and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.0750019 in Kuretivaripalem, H/o.Allavaripalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6:GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: - r APHC010435762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22741/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Pasupuleti Padma AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.K JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following; 2 VS, J WP 22741 2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Writ Petition No: 22741 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 action of the 4 respondent in issuing Proceedings in RC No.786/2025-C, dated 31.07.2025 placing my authorization on Fair Price Shop No.0750019 in Kuretivaripalem H/o Ailavaripalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, under interim suspension without considering my detailed explanation dated 22.07.2025, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the said order dated 31.07.2025 of the 4*'’ respondent in the interest of justice and to pass...” th The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of 2. Shop No.0750019 of Kuretivaripalem, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla District, in the year 2005. The petitioner’s authorization was extended from time to time. The case of the petitioner is also that since the date of appointment she has been distributing the essential commodities without there being any complaint from the cardholders as well as the official respondents. 2. While the matter being so, on 10.07.2025 at about 1:00 a.m. the police officials of Cherukupalli Police Station came to the petitioner’s house, knocked the door and has enquired as to whether the rice bags that were placed in front of the petitioner’s house belong to her or not. In reply, the petitioner stated that the rice bags did not belong to her but however has requested the 3 VS,J ^ WP_22741_2025 available in the fair price shop did not conduct any were lying in front an auto. On 10.07.2025, the petitioner made a representation to the Tahsildar, Cherukupalli, informing the aforesaid and also stated that somebody has intentionally placed the rice bags in front of her house to implicate her in false cases and requested the Tahsildar to verify the stocks available in her shop. Accordingly, she also submitted a report to the Sub-Inspector of Police on the same day. Thereafter she came to know that the police officials of Cherukupalli Police Station have booked a case against the petitioner under Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act vide FIR No.89 of 2025 for indulging in diversion of PDS rice into black market. police officials that she would check her stocks to prove her innocence. Thereafter, the police officials inspection and left the place taking away the 10 bags which of the petitioner’s house in events 3. Subsequently, on 14.07.2025, basing on instructions of the Tahsildar, Cherukupalli, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, conducted verification of the stocks available in the petitioner’s shop with reference to e-Pos device but did not find any deviation in the stocks. In spite of the same, the inspecting officials with an intention to implicate the petitioner in the above false case have seized the available stocks from the petitioner under the cover of mediatornama. Thereafter, the 4'^ respondent issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner on 17.07.2025. basing on the report submitted by the 6'^ respondent directing the petitioner to submit her explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said Show Cause Notice, for which the 4 VS, J WP 22741 2025 »r petitioner has submitted her explanation on 22.07.2025 duly explaining the facts that have happened on 10.07.2025. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that instead of considering her explanation, the 4’^ respondent under the pressure of the local political leaders has proceeded to issue the impugned suspension orders vide 4. RC.No.786/2025-C dated 31.07.2025, challenging the same the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned 5. Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. In support of the impugned proceedings, learned Assistant Government 6. Pleader has stated that though the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not referred in the impugned proceedings, however, the same was considered and as prima facie irregularities were established basing on the report and the statement submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled and thereafter, the Tahsildar was also directed to make necessary arrangements to ensure the uninterrupted distribution of Essential Commodities to the cardholders and also argued that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the Collector, Bapatla, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, but in spite of the same the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 5 VS, J WP_22741_2025 On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is an admitted fact that except referring to the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Repalle, dated 15.07.2025, as well as issuance of Show Cause Notice to the petitioner where it is mentioned as to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Even in the contents of the order also it only reads as under: 7. , no However, Smt. Pasupuleti Padma W/o Srinivasa Rao, dealer of FP Shop No.0750019 in Kuretivaripalem H/o Allavaripalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal. in her statement, the FIR against her duly motivated by the Political Ruling Party which is false This explanation is unconvincing case, as there is a significant irregularities were noticed and thereby prima facie irregularity is established based on the reports and the statements submitted by Smt. Pasupuleti Padma W/o. Srinivasa Rao are found to be untenable and false. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner, she has specifically stated that on 10.07.2025 midnight at 1:00 a.m. somebody knocked the petitioner’s door and questioned about the gunny bags containing rice which in front of her house and about their identity and that the petitioner in reply has stated she is no way concerned with those bags and in spite of the the police without hearing the petitioners words called for an auto and shifted the bags kept in front of the petitioner’s house and thereafter the respondent officials have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and did not find any variations in her stock, yet, the said impugned proceedings do not state with regard to the explanation submitted by the petitioner and even otherwise the reasoning as to how the explanation submitted by the petitioner is unconvincing to the Officer. 8. are same 6 VS, J WP 22741 2025 r The Apex Court in K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others^ held as under; 9. “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, she 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 her 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 her 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.” 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 was 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 Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the 10. 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 ^ 2020 see Online AP 755 7 VS, J WP_22741 2025 suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for enquiry. was remitted back conducting proper 11. 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 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 12. in view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 31.07.2025 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent herein to pass appropriate orders by duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 22.07.2025 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this The respondents are further directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are closed. No order as to costs. order. as Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- Wl. SRIN!V.4S ASSISTANT REGiSTRAF^ 0^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra 1. The Principal Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Collector, Bapatia District, Bapatla. 3. The Joint Collector, Bapatla District, Bapatla. * 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Repalle Division, Repalle, Bapatia District. 5. The Tahsildar, Repalle Mandal, Bapatia District. 6. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Repalle Mandal, Bapatia District. 7. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherukupalli Police Station, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatia District. 8. One CC to Sri K. Joseph, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT « t)ATED:01/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 22741 OF 2025 5 17 SEP 2025 ^ . Current Seciion .y/ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS