APHC010477862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24384/2025 Between: 1. KOTLA NAGA BHUVANESWARI, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER (UNDER TEMPORARY SUSPENDED), FP SHOP NO.0723029 RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.3-107, DAMMALAPADU VIL MUPPALLAMANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 522408. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AT NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AT SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, OF MUPPALLAMANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the impugned order issued by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24384/2025 KOTLA NAGA BHUVANESWARI, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER (UNDER TEMPORARY SUSPENDED), FP SHOP NO.0723029 RESIDENT OF 107, DAMMALAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, MUPPALLAMANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AT NARASARAOPET, PALNADU THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AT SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. THE TAHSILDAR, OF MUPPALLAMANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. ...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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in mandamus to declaring the impugned order issued by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KOTLA NAGA BHUVANESWARI, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER (UNDER TEMPORARY SUSPENDED), FP SHOP NO.0723029 RESIDENT OF LAGE AND POST, MUPPALLAMANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AT NARASARAOPET, PALNADU THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AT SATTENAPALLI, THE TAHSILDAR, OF MUPPALLAMANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, AP. ...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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in mandamus to declaring the impugned order issued by the 2 VS,J W.P.No.24384 of 2025 3rd Respondent/RDO vide its RC No.2556/2025-C dated 20-08-2025 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of Fair Shop No.0723029, Dammalapadu Village, Muppalla Mandal, Palnadu District without conducting independent enquiry, assigning any valid reason and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary. malafide and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned suspension of authorization order dated 20-08-2025 vide its RC NO.2556/2025-C passed by the 3rd respondent/RDO and further directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual 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 pleased to set aside the impugned suspension of authorization order dated 20-08-2025 vide its RC NO.2556/2025-C passed by the 3rd respondent/RDO and further directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as FR Shop dealer as usual pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJA SEKHAR SYKAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J W.P.No.24384 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd Respondent/RDO vide its RC No.2556/2025-C dated 20.08.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Shop No.0723029 Dammalapadu Village, Muppalla Mandal, Palnadu District without conducting independent enquiry, assigning any valid reason and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned suspension of authorization order dated 20.08.2025 vide its RC No.2556/2025-C passed by the 3rdrespondent/RDO and further directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0723029 of Dammalapadu Village, Muppalla Mandal, Palnadu District, in the year 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint either from the card holders or from the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, on 02.08.2025 at about 11:00 A.M., the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Muppalla, in the presence of the Village Revenue Officer, Dammalapadu Village and two mediators, conducted the inspection over the petitioner’s fair price shop and verified all the records and stock status and found no variation in the stock. In spite of the same, thereafter, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Division Officer, issued the show cause notice dated 4 VS,J W.P.No.24384 of 2025 11.08.2025, duly stating that, during the course of inspection, the inspecting officials came to a conclusion that the fair price shop dealer has failed to distribute the stocks to the card holders properly, which lead to variations in the stock and diverted the stocks into black market for her personal gain. As such, they have seized the available stock of 4115 Kgs of fortified rice, 183 packets of sugar, e-PoS device and electronic weighing machine and handed over the 11 PDS Government label rice bags each containing 50 Kgs (550 Kgs in total), to the in-charge of MLS point, Sattenapalli, with proper acknowledgment and for safe custody. The remaining stock of 3565 Kgs of fortified rice, 183 packets of sugar, e-PoS device and electronic weighing machine are handed over to the Village Revenue Officer, Dammalapadu Village, Muppalla Mandal, for safe custody under proper acknowledgment. 4. The case of the petitioner is that, in pursuance of the show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent on 11.08.2025, the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 14.08.2025, stating that no variations have been found by the inspecting officials during the course of inspection of the petitioner’s shop. In order to seize the petitioner’s dealership and cancel the same, some people have put 11 bags of PDS rice in a house about ½ kilometer away from the petitioner’s shop and took photographs of the same and came to the petitioner’s shop and thereafter, conducted inspection over the petitioner’s fair price shop. It was also stated in the explanation that, on 02.08.2025, when 250 ration card holders were to be distributed the essential commodities, the 5 VS,J W.P.No.24384 of 2025 inspecting officials have forced the petitioner to sign on the report and when she refused to do so, they threatened her. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of there being a detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner on 14.08.2025, in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 11.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent, instead of considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 14.08.2025 and as well as examining the other mediators, who are present during the course of conducting panchanama i.e., on the date of inspection, have straightaway suspended the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 20.08.2025. 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. 7. Though the impugned proceedings discloses the fact that initially basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector dated 02.08.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.08.2025 and on receiving the explanation from the petitioner on 14.08.2025, the Tahsildar, Muppalla Mandal, was again directed to conduct a re-enquiry into the matter and basing on the said report, the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended, but, however, it has not been disclosed in the said proceedings as to what procedure has been adopted by the 3rd respondent while conducting re- enquiry. 6 VS,J W.P.No.24384 of 2025 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a perusal of the panchanama also, it can be seen that the inspecting officials have not found any variation on the date of inspection i.e., on 02.08.2025. But, however, the show cause notice discloses that there is a variation of 550 Kgs of fortified rice in the petitioner’s shop, which is contrary to the panchanama dated 02.08.2025. 9. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 20.08.2025 are liable to be set-aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 20.08.2025 and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with the observations made by this Court. Till the disciplinary proceedings are finalized, the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner, as per the law laid in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and other 1. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 12.09.2025 MDP 1 2002 (1) ALD 577