APHC010565382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29426/2025 Between: 1. K JAMBULAIAH, S/O KANALA OBAIAH AGE-50 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1334041, PUNNAPURAM COLONY NANDYAL URBAN MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NANDYAL URBAN MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...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 to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1716/2025 dt-25-9-2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No. 1334041, Punnapuram Colony, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) 2 VS,J W.P.No.29426 of 2025 Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt-25-9- 2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and 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 to suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1716/2025 dt-25-9-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1334041, punnapuram Colony, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.29426 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1716/2025 dt- 25.9.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No. 1334041, Punnapuram Colony, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt-25.9.2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, ….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1334041, Punnapuram Colony, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 2008. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from any corner. b) While the matter being so, on 10.09.2025 at about 4.30 p.m., the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Nandyal along with the Village Revenue Officer, Ponnapuram Colony inspected the petitioner’s shop and verified the stock position with the book balance and ground stock. During the said inspection, it was alleged that there was a shortage of 300 kgs of fortified rice, 8 kgs of Jowar and 500 grams of sugar. Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by 4 VS,J W.P.No.29426 of 2025 the Deputy Tahsildar, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 3rd respondent on 11.09.2025 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, who, in turn, issued a show-cause on 16.09.2025 calling for an explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice. c) The petitioner submitted an explanation on 22.09.2025, explaining the reasons for the said variations found in the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and duly enclosing photographs to that extent also. However, in spite of the same, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned orders dated 25.09.2025, suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry, without even considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner or assigning proper reasons. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the show-cause notice, it can be observed that two charges were framed against the petitioner for the variations found in the petitioner’s shop during the inspection conducted on 10.09.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 22.09.2025, explaining the reasons for the variations and duly enclosing photographs to that extent. However, the 3rd respondent, except stating as follows: “the explanation submitted by the Fair Price Shop dealer has been examined and is found to be unsatisfactory. The reasons furnished regarding the less stock of Rice, Jowar and Sugar are not acceptable, as they reflect mismanagement of stock and failure to maintain proper accountability. Such lapses are 5 VS,J W.P.No.29426 of 2025 serious in nature and affect the timely supply of food items to the beneficiaries. The FP Shop Dealer agreed and signed in the presence of Panchayatdars that stock in his FP Shop is low. Hence, the explanation is not considered and disciplinary action is warranted against him for the irregularities noticed.” 5. The said reasoning given by the 3rd respondent clearly establishes that the 3rd respondent has not gone into the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without application of mind, has solely relied upon the signature made by the petitioner in the panchanama in the presence of panchayatdars with regard to the said variations found in the petitioner’s shop. However, the impugned order does not disclose as to whether the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 22.09.2025 has been considered in an appropriate manner. 6. In this context, the Judgment in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , under similar circumstances, has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 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 1 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 6 VS,J W.P.No.29426 of 2025 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 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 9. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order 25.09.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall pass a detailed order duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 22.09.2025 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 29.10.2025 KGR/CAB