1 APHC010492652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25417/2025 Between: 1. UCCHALA HARITHA, W/O. U.CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC- FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1118006 R/O.D.NO.2/67, RAVULAKOLANU VILLAGE, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PULIVENDULA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Ref.No.1/787/2025 dated 22.08.2025 in cancelling the 2 Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner F.P Shop No.1118006,Ravulakolanu Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa Districtwithout there being any valid reason, and without following the procedure under law without affording personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No.1118006, Ravulakolanu Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and pas 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. Shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioners F.P Shop No.1118006, Ravulakolanu Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District by suspending the proceedings of 4 Ref.No.1/787/2025 dated 22.08.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Ref.No.1/787/2025 dated 22.08.2025 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner F.P Shop No.1118006,Ravulakolanu Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa Districtwithout there being any valid reason, and without following the procedure under law without affording personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No.1118006, Ravulakolanu Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and pas….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1118006, Ravulakolanu village, Simhadripuram mandal, YSR Kadapa district in the year 2005 and the petitioner’s authorization is subsisting till 01.03.2025. Ever since, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to cardholders, without there being any complaint either from the card holders or from the respondent authorities. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 29.01.2025, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner framing three charges, for which the petitioner submitted her explanation on 04.02.2025. However, the 4th respondent, without considering the said explanation, passed proceedings dated 22.02.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price 4 shop. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6120 of 2025 before this Court which was disposed of on 11.03.2025 and the aforesaid proceedings were set-aside with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 04.02.2025 and then to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said orders, the 4th respondent has issued show cause notices on various occasions i.e. on 20.05.2025, 19.06.2025, 17.07.2025 and 06.08.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner as to why her authorization of the fair price shop should not be suspended. Though the petitioner has submitted individual explanations to the said show cause notices, the 4th respondent has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 22.08.2025, even without conducting any enquiry. As such, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sambasiva Pratap, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 18.09.2025, this Court has directed the 4th respondent to appear before this Court along with all the connected records to explain the necessity for issuing four show cause notices though there are directions from this Court to pass orders afresh on the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 04.02.2025. Accordingly, today, the 4th respondent has appeared before this Court and submitted that the said mistake occurred due to oversight and as such, requested this Court not to take any action against him, by taking a lenient view. 5 6. Admittedly, on a perusal of the material available on record, it can be observed that earlier, this Court, vide order dated 11.03.2025 has set-aside the suspension proceedings issued by the 4th respondent on 22.02.2025 and directed the respondents to pass fresh orders after duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued earlier i.e. 29.01.2025. In such a case, there is no necessity for the 4th respondent to once again issue four show cause notices dated 20.05.2025, 19.06.2025, 17.07.2025 and 06.08.2025 seeking her explanation. Even otherwise, it can be observed that the said show cause notices were issued to the petitioner seeking her explanation as to why her authorization shall not be suspended, but, vide the impugned proceedings dated 22.08.2025, the 4th respondent has straight away cancelled the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop. It is an admitted fact that the 4th respondent has not conducted any enquiry before taking adverse action against the petitioner nor has considered the explanations submitted by the petitioner to the respective show cause notices, which is against the principles of natural justice. 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 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 6 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.” 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. 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 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 7 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 22.08.2025 are hereby set-aside and the show cause notices dated 20.05.2025, 19.06.2025, 17.07.2025 and 06.08.2025 are also set-aside. Further, the matter is remitted back to the 4th respondent for passing appropriate orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 04.02.2025, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till finalization of the action initiated against the petitioner, the 4th respondent is directed to restore the fair price shop No.1118006, Ravulakolanu village, Simhadripuram mandal, YSR Kadapa district in favour of the petitioner and to supply essential commodities to the same. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :19.09.2025. Gss