IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 29595 OF 2024 Between: Medikonda Srinivasulu, S/o. Late Nammallu, Age 45 years, F.P. Shop Dealer, Shop No 0848026, Kakuturivaripalem Village, Tangutur Mandal, PrakasamDistrict. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary^ Supplies, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. The Collector(CS), Prakasam District, Ongole. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. The Tahsildar, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Singarayakonda District. 1. Civil 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prakasam ...Respondents Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order may or Direction, more particularly one in the respondent R.D.O., nature of Mandamus, to declaring the action of 4th Ongole, who suspended the authorization of the petitioner through his proceedings, dated 30-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3430/2024, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the sprit of Judgments of this Hon'ble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set-aside the Ongole, dt.30-11- 2024 in proceedings of 4th respondent-R.D.O. Rc.No. 1/3430/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop No 0848026 of Kakuturivaripalem Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay the proceeding of orders of learned R.D.O., Ongole(4th respondent), dated 30-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3430/2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: ^?569662024 ■KF IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 29595/2024 Between: Medikonda Srinivasulu ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus to declaring the action of 4^'^ respondent/R.D.O, Ongole, who suspended the authorization of the petitioner through his proceedings dated 30.11.2024 in Rc.No.1/3430/2024 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of judgments of this Honourable High Court and also mandatory provisions of control orders and also violate of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set aside the 2 ■ W.P.No.29595 of 201 proceedings of 4th respondent/R.D.O, Ongole dated 30.11.2024 in Rc.No.1/3430/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer Shop No.0848026 of Kakuturivaripalem Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District and such other order...” The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is dealer of fair price shop No.0848026 of Kakuturivaripalem village. Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. The 4‘^ respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc. 1/3430/2024 dated 30.11.2024 without properly appreciating the explanation of the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. On 03.11.2024, the Enforcement DT, Singarayakonda/6^^ respondent and the Village Revenue Officer, Kakututrivaripalem inspected the shop of the petitioner and without properly verifying the stock available in the shop and without comparing e-pos machine in the shop and without hearing the petitioner, the inspection officers hastily concluded that there stock of 175.5 kgs, prepared a false panchanama and filed a case against the petitioner under section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On 02.11.2024, in the evening, the MDU operator obtained thumb impression from Smt.K.Pitchamma the school cook at village center and took 5 kgs of Ragi and 5 kgs of Jagerry and asked the MDU operator to handover 170 kgs of rice at the school in the next day morning, but the inspection held on the next day before the stock was handed over and the same was informed to the inspection staff, but they did not heed the words of the petitioner. pass 2. was excess was 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader represented that he has no written instructions, and further submitted that there was stock abovp 3 BSB,J W.P.No.29595 of 2024 the permissible limit under section 29 (a) of A.P.S.T.P.D.S. Control (Order), 2018. The alleged variation of the stock is as follows:- 4. Variations Physical Balance available Balance to Total stock (OB+Receipts Issued Commodity SI. be No. available (+) 175.5 kgs Excess 1165.5 990 4840 5830 PDS fortified rice (Kgs) 1 300 300 Sugar packets 2 300 300 Redgram Dal 3 0.68 170.00 170.68 MDM fortified rice (Kgs) 4 5 5 MDM Jagerry (Kgs) 5 5 5 MDM Ragi powder (kgs) 6 \ As per clause 29 (a) of the APSTPDS control Order 2018 ; 29. Marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops; No prosecution shall be launched in certain mistakes / lapses / / irregularities indicated below (which are illustrative and not exhaustive) against the Fair Price Shop Dealers, (a) Minor variation in respect of single commodity upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month, As per clause 29 (a) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, 1.5% stock may be allowed taking into consideration of transactions for one month. If that parameter is taken into consideration, the alleged variation is a little more than what is permissible. However, the contention of the petitioner that the stock was to be lifted in the morning was not 5. omission excess 4 * W.P.No.29595 of 20^ considered by the authorities. Even otherv\/ise, the variation is not so high to take severe action of suspending the dealership pending enquiry. as th As such, the writ petition is allowed and the order of 4 6. respondent vide Rc. 1/3430/2024 dated 30.11.2024 is set aside. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to conduct enquiry as per law and the evidence without being take independent decision basing on influenced by any observation of this Court in this Order. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SDI- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3. The Collector(CS), Prakasam District, Ongole. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5. The Tahsildar, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. 6. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Singarayakonda, Prakasam District. 7. One CC to Sri. Alapati Vivekananda Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies GSC \ HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.29595 of 2024 1 0 9 JAN 20?5 AO Co Current Section ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS