APHC010472582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24567/2025 Between: 1. M. VENKATESWARA REDDY,, S/O. M. NALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT, 54 YEARS, OCC 3-125, FYALAKURTHY VILLAGE, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTORCS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, KODUMUR MANDAL, 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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the respondent vide Rc.DT(LR) authorization of the petitioner fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24567/2025 M. VENKATESWARA REDDY,, S/O. M. NALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT, 54 YEARS, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. H.NO. 125, FYALAKURTHY VILLAGE, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE COLLECTORCS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL THE TAHSILDHAR, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 particular Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the respondent vide Rc.DT(LR)809/2025, dated 30.08.2025, in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319037 of Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA M. VENKATESWARA REDDY,, S/O. M. NALLA REDDY, AGED FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. H.NO. 125, FYALAKURTHY VILLAGE, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, THE COLLECTORCS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL KURNOOL 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 particularly one in Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd 809/2025, dated 30.08.2025, in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319037 of Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and 2 VS,J W.P.No.24567 of 2025 in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No.1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District by suspending the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.DT(LR) 809/2025, dated 30.08.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J W.P.No.24567 of 2025 The 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 impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.DT(LR)809/2025, dated 30.08.2025, in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop dealer to Shop No.1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price dealer shop No.1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District by the 3rd respondent on 28.06.2010 and thereafter, his authorization was renewed from time to time and the same is subsisting till 31.03.2027. 3. The case of the petitioner is that because of the change in political scenario, some of the politicians in the locality started pressuring the respondents herein to stall the release of essential commodities to the petitioner on one pretext or the other in order to appoint their own persons. 4. While the matter being so, on 04.07.2025, the respondent officials conducted a surprise visit to the petitioner’s fair price shop and have found variation of (-) 140 Kgs of PDS stock and accordingly, a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was registered against the petitioner and the entire stock was seized by the officials. On 10.07.2025, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice, calling for explanation from the petitioner, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of the said 4 VS,J W.P.No.24567 of 2025 notice. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.07.2025 to the 3rd respondent, stating that he had distributed rice to the card holders and during distribution their fingerprints were not registered in the e-PoS machine and that the said variation occurred solely due to this error in the e-PoS machine. Thereafter, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 24.07.2025 based on the Section 6-A report submitted by the 4th respondent, challenging which, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.20192 of 2025, which was allowed by this Court by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2025 and the matter was remanded back to the 3rd respondent, for fresh consideration. This Court further directed to complete the said process within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order and also directed the respondent authorities to continue the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the respondents even without conducting any enquiry, has straightaway passed final orders, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 30.08.2025. Challenging which, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents 5 VS,J W.P.No.24567 of 2025 7. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the show cause notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner has submitted an explanation stating that he had distributed the essential commodities to eight (8) card holders, without obtaining biometric authentication, as the biometric device was not functioning at that time, which fact on enquiry was also confirmed by the card holders that they have drawn the essential commodities, during the month of July, 2025. But, however, as the Tahsildar has submitted a report stating that the petitioner is not distributing the essential commodities properly on time, not maintaining the proper timings and issuing lesser quantity of essential commodities to the card holders, without even enquiring the card holders on that aspect, the present impugned proceedings are passed cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. 8. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 30.08.2025, it is an admitted fact that though the petitioner has submitted an explanation (written statement), duly stating that he had distributed rice to the card holders and during distribution their fingerprints were not registered in the e-PoS machine and that the said variation occurred solely due to this error in the e-PoS machine, but, in spite of the same, without application of mind and without assigning any reasons as to how the authority is not satisfied with 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. 6 VS,J W.P.No.24567 of 2025 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 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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 without proper enquiry has issued the impugned proceedings, suspending the 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 22016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 VS,J W.P.No.24567 of 2025 authorization of the petitioner, which is a major penalty and as the impugned proceedings are non-speaking orders, the same has to be set-aside. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 30.08.2025 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 the essential commodities to the petitioner, pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 16.09.2025 MDP