APHC010455912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.23553 OF 2024 Between: Menda Varada Rajulu, S/o.Simmaiah, Aged 29 Years, Fair Price Shop Dealer, R/o.Naira Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District. --- Petitioner and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS-I) Department), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 3 others --- Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Srinivas Ambati Counsel for the respondents : Learned G.P for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “………..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.805/2024/CS, dt. 13-09-2024 passed by the 3rd JS,J WP No.23553/2024 2 respondent thereby suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0119013 situated in Naira Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting enquiry, without considering my explanation dt. 21-08-2024 and without recording reasons for suspension of authorization, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 And 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 13-09-2024 and direct the respondents particularly respondents to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair Price Shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for the shop No.0119013, located in Srikakulam District. On 09.07.2024, the respondents conducted a surprise check and found a variation of 2,195 kg of rice and 30 kg of ragi. A show- cause notice dated 29.07.2024 was served on the petitioner, framing three charges against him. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submits that the shop was handed over to Smt. Loda Radha, a member of a Self-Help Group. He also notified Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) that the previous dealer did not hand over 1,675 kg of rice, and that he was receiving less stock from the MLS Godown. The respondents, JS,J WP No.23553/2024 3 without considering his explanation, have suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon a decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others1, wherein at Para No.27 the High Court had extracted relevant portion of the Control Order, which reads as follows: “27. …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record 1 (2015) 6 ALD 359 JS,J WP No.23553/2024 4 reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order.” 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing on behalf of the respondents, and perused the material on record. 5. From a review of the decision of this Court in C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others, it is clear that the respondents herein did not follow the aforesaid provisions extracted at Para 27 before issuing the impugned order to suspend the authorization of the petitioners’ shop. Although the impugned order of suspending the authorization was issued on 13.09.2024, the respondents have not completed the inquiry till date. Further, Clause (vii) of the Control Order stipulates that the enquiry has to be completed within 90 days from the date of suspension. As seen from the impugned suspension order, dated 13.09.2024, it clearly shows that 90 days period had elapsed by 12.12.2024. Therefore, the impugned order must be suspended as per the decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Joint Collector, Kurnool and others v. A. Neelima2. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by this Court in C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others (1st supra) and 2 (1996) 1 APLJ 285 (DB) JS,J WP No.23553/2024 5 Joint Collector, Kurnool and others (2nd supra), without going into other aspects, the Writ Petition is allowed setting-aside the impugned suspension order, dated 13.09.2024, passed by the 3rd respondent. Further, the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0119013, on payment of necessary fees by him. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:03.07.2025 DSH