APHC010023272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1241/2025 Between: Danireddy Narasimha Reddy AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P. SASHIDAR REDDY 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 an appropriate Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus B/2115/2024 dated 23 as arbitrary and illegal the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1241/2025 Danireddy Narasimha Reddy ...PETITIONER f Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the issue an appropriate writ order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the andamus declaring the proceedings in ref B/2115/2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by the respondent No. as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System 2018 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental onstitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the rder or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the ef. .3 contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental onstitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 2 BSB, J W.P.No.1241 of 2025 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and drop all the further proceedings in pursuance of the same and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is a permanent dealer of fair price shop no.1104014 at Rajupalem village, Jammalamadugu mandal, YSR district. On 06.08.2024 the 3rd respondent came to the shop and after conducting inspection, recorded variation in the stock. The 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 for submission of explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation on 20.08.2024 that the excess stock of rice is due to non-lifting of the commodity after affixing thumb impression due to rains and promising to take the commodity after some time, but in the meanwhile the inspection had been held. The petitioner filed W.P.No.18984 of 2024 to declare the action of the authorities in not allotting the commodities inspite of subsistence of the authorization. This Court, vide order, dated 11.09.2024 disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to continue to supply the commodities so long as the authorization is in force, subject to compliance of legal formalities. Therefore, the 4th respondent issued another show cause notice asking the petitioner to explain the variation in the stocks as submitted in the panchanama. The petitioner submitted explanation stating the reasons as in the previous explanation. However, the 4th respondent issued impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner stating that the explanation was not convincing. 3. The impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and at the instance of political leaders who are pressurising to cancel the authorisation at any cost. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is further illegal since it was based on the report of the Tahsildar under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short ‘the EC Act’) as 3 BSB, J W.P.No.1241 of 2025 can be seen from the reference No.1 in the impugned order dated 23.12.2024, he further submitted that the authority failed to properly appreciate the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that the copy of both show cause notices referred to the same report of Tahsildar vide reference No.A/152/2024 dated 06.08.2024 which is infact the report under section 6A of the EC Act and the same cannot be a basis for taking disciplinary action in this regard, relied on the High Court order in W.P.No.500 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020. 5. The learned counsel for Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner suppressed the first show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 at a reference of report of the Tahsildar submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu requesting to take disciplinary action and therefore there is a separate report of the Tahsildar to take disciplinary action, apart from the report under section 6A of the EC Act submitted to the Joint Collector to take action under the provisions of the EC Act and therefore the decision recorded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case. He further submitted that the report of the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 06.08.2024 is different from the report submitted to the Joint Collector, Kadapa under section 6A of the EC Act as it was noted in the Tahsildar’s report to the R.D.O about the report to the Joint Collector. He submitted that the explanation is not satisfactory since the petitioner cannot keep the commodity with him after taking thumb impression of the card holder as per clause 12(e) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and there is no flaw in the impugned order. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report allegedly submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the report allegedly submitted to the Joint Collector have a common reference number and date as A/152/2024 dated 06.08.2024 and therefore, it is suppression of truth. He further submitted that the decision cited by him is applicable to the present 4 BSB, J W.P.No.1241 of 2025 case as the decision states that there must be two separate reports, one for the appointing authority, to take disciplinary action and another to the Joint Collector under section 6A of the EC Act to take action under the said Act. He further submitted that the same reference for two reports indicates suppression of truth as the second report said to be given to the Joint Collector has not been produced before this Court. 7. Perused the record. 8. It is settled law that without a separate report to the appointing authority to take disciplinary action, there cannot be any such action merely basing on the report submitted under section 6A of the EC Act which is meant for taking action under the provisions of the said Act. In that context only, the decision in W.P.No.500 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020 relied by the petitioner was rendered. It reads as follows in paragraph No.9 and 10: “9. When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by Inspecting Officer for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. In the written instructions placed on record by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, he submitted that Tahsildar, Santhabommali has also submitted another report under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, before Joint Collector, Srikakulam District, requesting to initiate necessary disciplinary action against Fair Price Shop dealer for the irregularities committed by him in distribution of stock to card holders. But this fact was not reflected in the order impugned in the writ petition. On the contrary, it indicates that based on report referred in the subject of order, the impugned order is passed. Copy of report is also not placed on record by learned Assistant 5 BSB, J W.P.No.1241 of 2025 Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to support his contention that a separate report is submitted as required under sub clause (i) of Clause 20 of Control Order, 2018. The order impugned in the writ petition refers only one report submitted by Tahsildar, Santhabommali. Respondents cannot substitute with another report in the place of earlier report, by submitting written instructions. The alleged second report under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is not referred in the order impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that proceedings were initiated, based on another report submitted under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, as copy of it is not placed on record, except written instructions. Hence, I find that passing order, based on the report filed by Tahsildar, Santhabommali for initiation of proceedings under Section 6A of E.C.Act as well as initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is a serious illegality and contrary to Control Order, 2018. 10. As per Clause ‘q’ of Circular Memo issued by Commissioner, Civil Supplies in No.21/100/2015-AD.1 PP & CCS dated 28.09.2015, proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are liable for confiscation or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorization to be issued, based on report. In view of memo and requirement under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order passed by second respondent cannot be sustained, consequently the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20 (i) of Control Order, 2018.” 6 BSB, J W.P.No.1241 of 2025 9. The action challenged before this Court in the present Writ petition is the order of suspension based on the report of Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar. The impugned order dated 23.12.2024 of the R.D.O referred as S.No.1 “6A report of the Tahsildar, Rajupalem, Ref.No.A/152/2024, dated 06.08.2024”. 10. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed before this Court show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 along with supporting report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Proddatur dated 06.08.2024 addressed to the R.D.O, Jammalamadugu. The show cause notice dated 12.08.2024 has reference to the report of Tahsildar, Rajupalem, Ref.No.A/152/2024 dated 06.08.2024. Of course, the impugned proceedings referred such report as the one submitted under section 6A, but the contents of the report discloses that the grounds for seeking disciplinary action are the variation in the stock of fortified rice which is beyond the permissible limit under the clause 29(a) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, non-display of stock price board and the non-display of authorization in a prominent place of the shop. Thus, there are clear reasons stated to the RDO, Jammalamadugu to take suitable disciplinary action. As such, merely because the very same report was described/mentioned as 6A report in the impugned order, such a report cannot be treated as 6A report. Even if there is no separate 6A report submitted to the Joint Collector, it is not the subject matter of the present writ petition to challenge the order passed by the RDO basing on the report to the Tahsildar. If there is no separate 6A report, it is to be examined in any action taken by the Joint Collector. Thus, a erroneous reference by section number in the references stated in the impugned proceedings, the order cannot be treated as illegal, since the substance of the report can be considered and not erroneous mention of the provision of the law. 11. With reference to the excess stock the concerned authorities felt it un-satisfactory. The dealer in the explanation stated that as the agriculture operations were going on during the rainy season, some of the card holders, 7 BSB, J W.P.No.1241 of 2025 while going to the agriculture fields, used to put the thumb mark with a request to keep the stock in the fair price shop till they collect the stock in the evening while returning home from the agriculture fields. The dealer further stated that three anganwadi centers of Korrapadu put their thumb impression on EPOS machine and received rice of 175 kgs and kept in the shop intending to bring an auto and another five cardholders kept 155 kgs in the fair price shop after thumb impressions were recorded due to old age informing the dealer their family members would collect and handover it to them at their houses. Of course during the course of main enquiry, a detailed examination of the explanation can be made. For the time being, in the present writ petition, the observation of the authority cannot found fault. As such, the impugned order does not require any interference at this juncture. 12. As the impugned order does not refer to the period of suspension, it cannot be allowed for an indefinite period as it would defeat the right of the writ petitioner to have a fair enquiry. 13. As such, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to expeditiously conduct enquiry within a reasonable period not exceeding one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the enquiry is not concluded within such time, the impugned order gets suspended without any further 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. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated 10.02.2025 GRL 8 BSB, J W.P.No.1241 of 2025 73 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1241 of 2025 Date: 10.02.2025 GRL