1 APHC010452262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23838/2025 Between: 1. SMT.M.FAZILATH BAGUM, W/O HARSHATHULLA BAIG AGE 35 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1332011, BILAKALAGUDURU VILLAGE GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDAYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDAYAL DSIT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDAYAL 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 tomay be pleased to issue Writ Order 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/1272/2025 dt 25-7-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of the FP Shop No.1332011, Bilakalaguduru Village Gadivemula Mandal, Nandayal Dist., is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State 2 Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 25-7-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass IA 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 may be pleased Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1272/2025 dt:25-7-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.1332011, Bilakalaguduru Village Gadivemula Mandal, Nandayal 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 WRIT PETITION NO: 17270/2024 Between: 1. SMT.M.FAZILATH BAGUM, W/O HARSHATHULLA BAIG AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1332011, BILAKALAGUDURU VILLAGE GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDAYAL DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDAYAL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDAYAL DISTRICT 3 ...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 3rd respondent vide Rc.No./CS/398/2024 dt.29-7-2024 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of the FP Shop No.1332011, Bilakalaguduru Village Gadivemula Mandal, Nandayal Dist., 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.29-7-2024 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 Rc.No./CS/398/2024 dt:29- 7-2024 in respect of FP Shop No. 1332011, Bilakalaguduru Village Gadivemula Mandal, Nandayal 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: 4 COMMON ORDER: As both these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner and as the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, this Court is of the opinion to dispose of these petitions by way of a common order, by taking W.P.No.23838 of 2025 as main case. W.P.No.23838 of 2025 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue Writ Order 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/1272/2025 dt 25-7-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of the FP Shop No.1332011, Bilakalaguduru Village Gadivemula Mandal, Nandayal Dist., 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 25-7-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1332011, Bilakalaguduru village, Gadivemula mandal, Nandyal district and her authorization is valid up to 31.03.2027. For the past 14 years, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the authorities. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 09.07.2024, the District Supply Officer, Nandyal along with Deputy Tahsildar, Nandyal and Village Revenue Officer, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found no discrepancies in the 5 ground stock available. However, during inspection, few cardholders complained against the petitioner that she is not residing in the said village due to which they are facing lot of inconvenience. Basing on the same, the District Civil Supply Officer submitted his report to the 3rd respondent on 27.07.2024 recommending to suspend the petitioner’s authorization and accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.07.2024 calling for an explanation within a period of seven days, but, without completion of the said period, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 29.07.2024 suspending the petitioner’s authorization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.17270 of 2024, wherein this Court has passed an interim order suspending the proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent dated 29.07.2024 in respect of the petitioner’s fair price shop No.1332011, Bilakalaguduru village, Gadivemula mandal, Nandyal district, by continuing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer. Boring grudge against the petitioner, the respondent officials, on 08.07.2025 have again inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain discrepancies i.e., they found 2 kilograms of sugar, 18 fortified rice packets, 50 kilograms of fortified rice and 30 kilograms of ICDS ragi dal, all in excess. The said stock were seized by the respondent authorities and based on a report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.07.2025 seeking her explanation within seven days. Accordingly, the petitioner 6 submitted her explanation on 18.07.2025, without considering which, the 3rd respondent has again suspended the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop vide proceedings dated 25.07.2025. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order in a mechanical manner and without assigning any reasons, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri. M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 25.07.2025 and 29.07.2024, admittedly the 3rd respondent has framed charges against the petitioner, but, nowhere the 3rd 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 3rd 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 others1, 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 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 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 7 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.” 7. 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 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 proper enquiry. 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 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside and the writ petition has to be allowed 9. In view of the above detailed order, W.P.No.17270 of 2024 is also liable to be allowed. 8 10. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No./CS/398/2024, dated 29.07.2024 and Rc.No./CS/1272/2025, dated 25.07.2025 are hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry in the light of the observations made herein. Till completion of the said proceedings, the respondents shall supply essential commodities to petitioner’s fair price shop bearing No.1332011, Bilakalaguduru village, Gadivemula mandal, Nandyal district. 11. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :10.09.2025 Gss