APHC010461752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23537 OF 2025 Between: P Venkamma, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ F.P. Shop Dealer Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. Shop No. 0715062, R/o. Kommerapudi Village ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi Secretariat Building Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattenapalli Revenue Division, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. Amaravathi, ...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 a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in proceedings in R.C. No. 2626/2025-C, dt. 21-08-2025 of the 2nd respondent whereunder Cancelled the authorization of the Petitioners F.P. Shop No. 0715062, Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, without conducting enquiry and contrary to the control orders, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Orders. 1 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 proceedings in R.C. No. 2626/2025-C, dt. 21-08-2025 of the 2nd respondent whereunder Cancelled the authorization of the Petitioner’s F.P. Shop No. 0715062, Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, by directing the respondents 2 & 3 to supply the commodities to the petitioner for distribution, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010461752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) '■5a J-5#; [3333] L? THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23537/2025 Between; 1.P VENKAMMA, S/0. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER, KOMMERAPUDl VILLAGE SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. SHOP NO. 0715062, R/0. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SATTENAPALLI REVENUE DIVISION, SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3.THETAHSILDAR, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU 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 top leased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in proceedings in R.C. No. 2626/2025-C, dt. 21-08-2025 of the 2nd respondent whereunder Cancelled the authorization of the Petitioners F.P. Shop No. 0715062, Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, without conducting enquiry and contrary to the control orders, is VS,J W.P No.23537 of 2024 2 illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Orders and to 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 High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the proceedings in R.C. No. 2626/2025-C, dt. 21-08-2025 of the 2nd respondent whereunder Cancelled the authorization of the Petitioner’s F.P. Shop No. 0715062, Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, by directing the respondents 2 & 3 to supply the commodities to the petitioner for distribution, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTl Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P No.23537 of 2025 3 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in proceedings in R.C No,2626/2025-C dated 21.08.2025 of the 2"'* respondent whereunder Cancelled the authorizationof the Petitioner’s F.P. Shop No.0715062. Kommerapudi Village. Kommerapudi Village. Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, without conducting enquiry and contrary to the control orders, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Orders and to pass such other order or orders.. 2. The petitioner is a permanent dealer of the Fair Shop No.0715062 of Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. Since the date of her appointment, she is running the said fair shop without any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. While the matter being so, on 02.10.2024, the Mandal Revenue 3. Inspector along with other staff inspected the shop, verified the stocks and registrars and though has not found any variations and without issuing any receipt, the Mandal Revenue Officer seized the petitioner’s E-POS machine even without conducting any panchanama. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2 on 15.10.2024 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of such show cause notice. Since the copy of the panchanama was not served on the petitioner, the petitioner could not submit her explanation. However, she made a representation dated 16.10.2024 to the respondent No.3, requesting to furnish a copy of the panchanama, prepared at the time of the inspection. Inspite of the same, neither the panchanama was served on the petitioner nor VS,J W.P No.23537 of 2025 4 the essential commodities were supplied by the respondents. The petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.25088 of 2024. During the course of the arguments in the said writ petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court that the 4. petitioner’s authorization was already suspended on 29.10.2024 and accordingly, furnished a copy of the said suspension order along with the copy of panchanama. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to withdraw the writ petition, with a liberty to challenge the suspension order dated 11.11.2024 Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation dated 19.11.2024 to the respondent No.2. But, inspite of the same, the respondent No.2 even without conducting any independent enquiry has suspended the petitioner’s authorization. Challenging which the petitioner was again constrained to file W.P No.29959 of 2024, which was disposed of on 09.04.2025, observing as under: “In the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court, as extracted supra, and in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case for more than 90 days, it has to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the “reasonable period” and accordingly, this Court is holding that the 2"*^ respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within a “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed based on the report of the 3'" authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2"'^ respondent to revoke the suspension order, dated 29.10.2024, issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. No order as to costs...” 5. respondent dated 29.10.2024 shall be revoked and the 6. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner’s authorization was restored and continued to distribute the essential commodities. In the meanwhile, once again a show cause notice was issued VS,J W.P No.23537 of 2025 5 on 13.08.2025 by the respondent No.2 alleged to have been issued basing on a report submitted by the Tahsildhar, for which the petitioner has f submitted an explanation. In pursuance to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 even without conducting any independent enquiry, on the allegations made against the petitioner, has straight away cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings R.C NO.2626/2025-C dated 21.08.2025. Challenging which the present writ petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned 7. Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. On a perusal of the show cause notice, dated 13.08.2025, it can be 8. seen that the said show cause notice was issued basing on a report in R.C NO.328/2024-A dated 07.08.2025 submitted by the Tahsildhar. However, it is alleged in the said show cause notice that the Tahsildhar has received a complaint from 116 cardholders, raising various allegations against the '■1 petitioner and basing upon which he submitted a report to the respondent No.2 herein. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No.2 issued show cause notice on 13.08.2025, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. However, the said show cause notice does not refer to the complaint of the villagers and also does not disclose any details to establish that it was issued in pursuance of a complaint made by the villagers against the petitioner. However, the petitioner submitted an explanation. VS,J W.P No.23537 of 2025 6 In view of the same, it is for the respondent No.2 to conduct any independent enquiry by duly serving the complaint of the cardholders to the petitioner as well as the report of the Tahsildhar, but in the present case, all these things have happened behind the back of the petitioner without her knowledge and on the other hand, it is also a fact that the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled without even conducting any independent 9. enquiry, on the allegations made behind the back of the petitioner. In view of the same, writ petition is allowed by setting aside the show 10. cause notice dated 13.08.2025 and as well as the subsequent cancellation order dated 21.08.2025. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-G.HELANAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Supplies Department, Velagapudi Civil 1 The Principal Secretary ' secretariat Building, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Divisional Officer, Sattenapalli Revenue Division, 2. The Revenue Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. 3. TheTahsildar 4. OneCCto Sri. Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. Koti Reddy Idamakanti, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh GP For Civil. Supplies, 5. Two CCS to [OUT] 6. Two CCS to GP For Revenue 7. Two CD Copies. High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]. AL HIGH COURT DATED:04/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 23537 OF 2025 ?• SEP JO’S I . Curreni seciion ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS