APHC010452782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24721/2025 Between: 1. K VELANGINI RANI, W/O RAGHAVULU, AGE 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.0725014, R/O.MANDAPADU VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDIKONDURU POLICE STATION, MEDIKONDURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Proceedings in Rc.No.2193/2024-B, dated 02.08.2025 cancelling my dealership on Fair Price Shop No.0725014, Mandapadu Village, 2 VS,J W.P.No.24721 of 2025 Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, without considering the detailed explanation dated 02.11.2024 and requisition dated 25.07.2025 of the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the said Proceedings dated 02.08.2025 of the 2nd respondent and to issue necessary directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0725014, Mandapadu Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and to 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 to suspend the impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.2193/2024-B, dated 02.08.2025 of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0725014, Mandapadu Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and to pass 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: 3 VS,J W.P.No.24721 of 2025 This Court made the following 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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Proceedings in Rc.No.2193/2024-B, dated 02.08.2025 cancelling petitioner’s dealership on Fair Price Shop No.0725014, Mandapadu Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, without considering the detailed explanation dated 02.11.2024 and requisition dated 25.07.2025 of the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the said Proceedings dated 02.08.2025 of the 2nd respondent and to issue necessary directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0725014, Mandapadu Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner, in the interest of justice….” 2. Brief facts of the case as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0725014, Mandapadu Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks for the past 20 years. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 30.05.2025, the petitioner made a payment of Rs.500/- in the form of Challan vide No.91070406842025, payable to the Civil Supplies Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh for renewal of her authorization. b) While the matter being so, on 10.10.2024, the 4th respondent, along with his staff and the V.R.O., Mandapadu Village, Medikonduru Mandal caught hold of two MDU vehicles including the vehicle attached to the petitioner’s 4 VS,J W.P.No.24721 of 2025 shop at Visadala Cross Road, Mandapadu Village and found PDS rice bags. After conducting verification, they came to the conclusion that the MDU vehicle operators were diverting PDS rice into the black market, seized the vehicles along with the rice bags, and booked a case in FIR No.266/2024 at Medikoduru Police Station. Subsequently, based on the instructions of the District Administration, the 3rd respondent rushed to the police station to conduct an enquiry into the matter. During the enquiry, he examined both the MDU operators and as well as conducted the inspection of the petitioner’s shop, and on verification of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop, the enquiry officer found no variation in the stock. Though there was no variation in the stock, the 3rd respondent highhandedly seized 28.02 quintals of fortified rice and 189 packets of sugar from the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and later seized 45 bags of PDS rice @ 50 kgs each available in the two MDU vehicles from the SHO, Medikonduru P.S. and handed over the entire stock to Smt.Vippala Eswaramma, W/o Viswanatha Reddy, Fair Shop dealer of shop No.072513, Medikonduru for temporary safe custody. Further, the 3rd respondent requested the 2nd respondent to confiscate the entire seized stocks to the Government under Section 6-A(1) of E.C. Act, 1955. c) Based on the report of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 01.11.2024 framing a single charge against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had loaded 25 bags of PDS rice, each 50 kgs, in the MDU vehicle and violated Clause 21(C) of APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018 and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation within a 5 VS,J W.P.No.24721 of 2025 period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice. For which, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 28.10.2024 informing the fact that the MDU operator, Sri.D.Sambasiva Rao, who is attached to petitioner’s Fair Price Shop had obtained the PDS rice following due process by putting a thumb on the e-POSS machine on 10.10.2024 from her shop for distribution of the same to the cardholders, and as such, there were no irregularities committed by the petitioner with regard to the stock available in her shop. As there was no response from the 2nd respondent even after the lapse of nine months of the petitioner submitting her explanation, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 25.07.2025 requesting to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, besides directing the concerned officials to supply stocks to her for distribution among the cardholders. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent even without considering the explanation submitted the petitioner on 28.10.2024 as well as without conducting any enquiry, passed the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2193/2024-B, dated 02.08.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 02.08.2025, it is an admitted fact that it refers with regard to the report of the CS DT, Medikonduru dated 11.10.2024, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6 VS,J W.P.No.24721 of 2025 01.11.2024 and as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 02.11.2024, but, nowhere it is stated as to whether any enquiry has been conducted by giving notice to the petitioner and also examining the witnesses on the charge framed against the petitioner. Even otherwise, except extracting the explanation given by the petitioner in the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has not applied his mind by giving a reasoning as to in what way he is not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, in spite of there being an explanation denying the charge framed against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent gives a finding that the petitioner has failed to deny the charge framed against her. It can also be observed that in pursuance of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, initially the 2nd respondent ought to have suspended the petitioner’s authorization and thereafter, by conducting an enquiry, ought to have cancelled it. But, in the present case, as the said procedure is not followed, which is against the principles of natural justice. 5. In that regard, 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 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 7 VS,J W.P.No.24721 of 2025 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.” 6. Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, 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. 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. 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 8 VS,J W.P.No.24721 of 2025 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 2nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 02.08.2025 are 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. The respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 17.09.2025 KGR