APHC010019322022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1558/2022 Between: 1. TIRUPATHI GANGAMMA MAHALI SANGHAM, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT SMT.R.SUDHA W/O RAJANIKANTH OCC. F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1066010, KUPPAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CS) CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MADANAPALLE DIVISION, CHITTOOR DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc A3/3850/2021 dt.28-12- 2021 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1066010, Kuppam Village and Mandal of Chittoor Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, 2 VS,J W.P.No.1558 of 2022 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 operation of the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc A3/3850/2021 dt.28-12-2021 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1066010, Kuppam Village and Mandal of Chittoor Dist., by continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 vacate the orders passed in WP. 1558/2022 dated 28-01-2022 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.1558 of 2022 ORDER: The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc A3/3850/2021 dt.28-12- 2021 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1066010, Kuppam Village and Mandal of Chittoor Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual ….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.106610, Kuppam Village and Mandal, Chittoor District vide proceedings dated 05.08.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint either from any corner. b) On 27.09.2021 at about 12.10 p.m., the Vigilance and Enforcement Inspector, Tirupati, along with Deputy Tahsildar, Kuppam inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and found certain variations with book balance and ground stock. Basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 16.10.2021 framing three charges relating to variation in stock of rice, red gram dall (RG dal) and palm oil. In response, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 22.10.2021 stating that, on the date of inspection itself i.e., 27.09.2021, the essential 4 VS,J W.P.No.1558 of 2022 commodities for the month of October had been received by her vide proceedings dated 26.09.2021 and explained that 171 bags of rice (each bag containing 50 kgs), totaling 8550 kgs were unloaded at the fair price shop, but the delivered stock had not yet been entered in the e-POS machine at the time of inspection i.e., at 12.10 p.m., c) Despite the petitioner’s explanation, the 3rd respondent, without verifying about the said fact stated in the explanation, mechanically issued the impugned order dated 28.12.2021, suspending the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization pending enquiry. d) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without giving any cogent reasons and solely relying on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, suspended the petitioner’s authorization, whereas the said report pertains to 6A proceedings and was not intended for disciplinary action under the Control Order. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 28.01.2022, this Court passed the following interim order: “….Accordingly, while suspending the impugned order, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as FP shop dealer of shop No.106610, Kuppam Village and Mandal of Chittoor District.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has stated that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on 28.01.2022, the 5 VS,J W.P.No.1558 of 2022 petitioner is being continued as the Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.106610, Kuppam Village and Mandal of Chittoor District. 6. However, the basis for issuance of the show-cause notice by the 3rd respondent is the report submitted by the 4th respondent for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. In the absence of any separate report for initiating disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020, wherein, by order dated 08.01.2020, this Court set aside the impugned proceedings of suspension of the authorization as being contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. 7. A perusal of the order dated 08.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.500 of 2020 would show that this Court has considered a similar issue and examined the requirement under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018 and held as under: “7. …..In view of specific contention, it is necessary to advert to Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, and the same is extracted hereunder: “The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6-A(1) of the 6 VS,J W.P.No.1558 of 2022 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions and authorization.” It appears from Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, two separate reports are required to be submitted by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and proceedings under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act. 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 the 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.” ….Hence, I find that passing order, based on the report filed by Tahsildar, Santhabommali for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A 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.” 8. In the instant case also, it is evident from the impugned proceedings that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on the basis of the report submitted for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, without there being a separate report for disciplinary action as mandated under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018. Therefore, issuance of the cancellation order is unjustified. 7 VS,J W.P.No.1558 of 2022 9. Accordingly, following the order dated 08.01.2020, passed in W.P.No.500 of 2020, this Writ Petition is also allowed, and the impugned suspension order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 03.11.2025 KGR