APHC010556312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28961 OF 2025 Between: 1. KANAPARTHI MAHESH BABU, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER, R/O IPURU VILLAGE IPURU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONALOFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, IPURU 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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.l869/2025-G dated 03-09-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, as illegal, arbitrary, void and in violation of principles of natural justice IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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 Rc.No.l869/2025-G dated 03-09-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28961 OF 2025 The Court made the following order: 1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer by virtue of the proceedings in Rc.No.6835/2011-B dated 16.08.2012. The petitioner claims that he has been distributing commodities to the cardholders without any complaint whatsoever. 2. It is further the case of the petitioner that he has also paid the requisite fee for renewal of his authorization on 18.03.2025 and the same is under consideration by the 2nd respondent. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 02.08.2025, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda, along with other officials inspected his Fair Price Shop and found certain irregularities, which led to the initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. In pursuance thereof, the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.1869/2025-G dated 03.09.2025 was served on the petitioner, whereby and whereunder the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop was kept under suspension. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 5. Perused the material available on record. 4 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 was passed by the 2nd respondent without properly appreciating the case of the petitioner. He would further submit that, though the impugned order, directed the petitioner to show cause within a period of seven (07) days as to why his dealership shall not be cancelled besides imposing penalty of 10 times as he has violated clause No.21(c) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2018 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, nevertheless under the impugned order the authorization of the petitioner was kept under suspension with immediate effect. He would further submit that though the impugned order reads that personal hearing was offered to the petitioner on 30.08.2025, no such notice is issued to him. He would further point out that on a perusal of the impugned proceedings it is clear that the 3rd respondent has stated that prima facie case is proved against one Sri Meghavath Balakrishna Naik, S/o. Thavurya Naik, who is running fair price shop No.0741011 of Ipuru Village and Mandal committed certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders in a huge quantity and to suspend the authorization pending finalization of disciplinary action against the petitioner, who is running fair price shop No.0721011. The impugned order further reads that charged were framed against the petitioner who is running the fair price shop No.0741011. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has fairly admitted that the order was not passed in accordance 5 with law and there is ambiguity with regard to the fair price shop number of the petitioner inasmuch as different numbers are given at different places and requested this Court to pass the appropriate orders. 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, it can be seen that as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that, the 3rd respondent has not properly appreciated the case of the petitioner. Further, the number of the fair price shop was also mentioned with different numbers at different places. Apart from the same, though it is stated that show-cause notice was given to the petitioner, conspicuously the date of show-cause notice is not mentioned in the impugned order. Further, the impugned order is silent with regard to the nexus between Sri Meghavath Balakrishna Naik and the petitioner. 9. From the above, it is clear that the order under challenge was passed without issuing show-cause notice and nothing is placed on record to show that personal hearing was offered to the petitioner on 30.08.2025. In the absence of the same, the order under challenged is not sustainable under law. Further, as already stated the impugned order at one place it is stated that fair price shop No.0741011 was run by Sri Meghavath Balakrishna Naik and at another place it is stated that the said shop was run by the petitioner. 10. In view of the contradictory observations and findings given by the 3rd respondent, it can be held that the impugned order was passed mechincally without application of mind and the same does not stand for 6 judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and writ petition is allowed. It is made clear, that this order will not preclude the 2nd respondent from initiating action against the petitioner in accordance with law. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date: 23.10.2025 BSK 7 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28961 OF 2025 Date: 23.10.2025 BSK