APHC010582032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30285/2025 Between: 1. D NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O KONDA REDDY AGE-60 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1339032, CHINTALACHERUVU VILLAGE CHAGALAMARRI 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. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAGALAMARRI 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 or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1824/2025 dt-18-10-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 1339032, Chintalacheruvu Village Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without 2 VS,J W.P.No.30285 of 2025 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-18-10-2025 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 pleased Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1824/2025 dt- 18-10-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1339032, Chintalacheruvu Village, Chagalamarri 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.30285 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 or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1824/2025 dt-18- 10-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 1339032, Chintalacheruvu Village Chagalamarri 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 violationof the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt-18-10-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer ….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1339032, Chintalacheruvu Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 2014. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been running the Fair Price Shop without any complaint from anybody whatsoever. His authorization is valid up to 31.03.2027. b) While things stood thus, on 16.09.2025, the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Allagadda along with the Village Revenue Officer, Chintalacheruvu have inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and verified the stock position with reference to the book balance and the ground stock. On such inspection, 4 VS,J W.P.No.30285 of 2025 the Deputy Tahsildar(CS) found a variation of + 6 kgs of fortified rice in excess and no variation in respect of any other commodities. Basing on the report submitted by the inspecting officials, the 3rd respondent has issued a show- cause notice on 21.09.2025, framing four charges against the petitioner. c) The petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.10.2025, clearly stating that the variation of +6 kgs of fortified rice was within the permissible limits and that there was no variation with respect to other commodities. With regard to other charges, the petitioner has enclosed photographs showing that he had distributed essential commodities to old-aged persons at their doorsteps, along with the distribution details. d) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without assigning cogent reasons, have straight away suspended his authorization in a mechanical manner vide impugned proceedings dated 18.10.2025. Challenging the said order, 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 impugned proceedings, it can be observed that the 3rd respondent has framed following four charges against the petitioner: Charge No.1: variation of + 6 kgs of fortified rice in excess. Charge No.2: Failure to supply essential commodities to old-aged persons at their doorsteps. 5 VS,J W.P.No.30285 of 2025 Charge No.3: Not maintaining proper shop opening timings. Charge No.4: Distribution of lesser quantity of rice to cardholders. 5. With regard to Charge No.1, it can be observed that the variation is only + 6 kgs of fortified rice upon a closing balance of 865 kgs, which in fact is within the permissible limits as per the clause 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2018. 6. With regard to Charge Nos.2, 3 and 4, it appears that no independent enquiry has been conducted, though the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation supported by photographs to establish that he distributed essential commodities to old-aged persons at their doorsteps. 7. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside, as they have been passed without assigning any cogent reasons and without application of mind. The 3rd respondent merely stated that the explanation offered by the dealer was found unsatisfactory and that he was not convinced with the same, without assigning any reasons as to in what way he was not satisfied or convinced with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 8. In that regard, 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 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 6 VS,J W.P.No.30285 of 2025 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 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.” 9. Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, 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. 10. 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 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 VS,J W.P.No.30285 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. 11. 11. 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. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court hold that Charge No.1 is unsustainable since the variation is within permissible limit and, accordingly the same is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry with regard to Charge Nos.2, 3 and 4 and thereafter pass a detailed speaking order in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. Since the suspension order dated 18.10.2025 has been set aside by this Court, and the disciplinary proceedings are yet to be finalized, the respondents are further directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution until final orders are passed. 8 VS,J W.P.No.30285 of 2025 13. Accordingly, the 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 : 04.11.2025. KGR