APHC010668802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34447 OF Between: 1. DEVAGANUGALA HARI PRASAD, S/O. NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER R/O. DNO.14 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR VISHNALAYAM, KANKIPADU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHREP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP 2 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCIVIL SUPPLIES, KRISHNA D ANDHRA PRADESH S. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VUYYURU DIVISION, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP 4 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT,AP 5. 5. M CHINA KHASIM, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. AGED 45 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DE MANDAL, KRISHNADISTRICT, AP IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34447 OF 2025 DEVAGANUGALA HARI PRASAD, S/O. NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER R/O. DNO.14 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR VISHNALAYAM, KANKIPADU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHREP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCIVIL SUPPLIES, KRISHNA D ANDHRA PRADESH S. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VUYYURU DIVISION, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP 4 THE TAHSILDAR, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT,AP 5. M CHINA KHASIM, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. AGED 45 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER KANKIPADU VILLAGE MANDAL, KRISHNADISTRICT, AP ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA DEVAGANUGALA HARI PRASAD, S/O. NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER R/O. DNO.14-129, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR VISHNALAYAM, KANKIPADU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHREP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCIVIL SUPPLIES, KRISHNA DISTRICT, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VUYYURU DIVISION, THE TAHSILDAR, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT,AP 5. M CHINA KHASIM, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. AGED ALER KANKIPADU VILLAGE ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34447 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamous questioning the impugned proceedings Rc.CS/18/2025, dated 22.11.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent against Petitioner’s F.P.Shop (No.620006) in Kankipadu Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, A.P without following the due process of law is highly illegal, arbitrary and exercise of power, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside impugned proceedings Rc.CS/18/2025, dated 22.11.2025 and pass such other orders…” 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer bearing Shop No. 620006 in Kankipadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District in the year 2010 by the Respondent No.3 herein. The Petitioner’s authorization has been renewed from time to time and is in force up to 31.03.2027. It is also the case of the Petitioner that he has been supplying essential commodities to the card dealers without there being any complaint either from the card holders or the concerned authorities. 3. While things thus stood, due to village political rivalry the Respondent Authorities have conducted inspection over the Petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 31.10.2025 and registered a case against the Petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘EC Act’), without conducting any enquiry. As the Respondents stopped to supply of essential commodities to the Petitioner without any cancellation, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.34112 of 2025. When the said Writ Petition came up for admission on 08.12.2025, it was brought to notice of this Court by the Respondent Authorities, the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 suspending the petitioner’s authorization. As such, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn with a liberty to challenge the said suspension order dated 22.11.2025. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the suspension order dated 22.11.2025 on the ground that the Petitioner was placed on suspension even without issuing any Show-Cause Notice framing charges against the Petitioner and without calling for an explanation from the Petitioner, solely basing upon Report under 6-A of the EC Act submitted by Tahsildar, dated 22.11.2025 as well as considering the fact that registration of a case against the Petitioner Section 6-A of the EC Act on 31.10.2025. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the Respondents. 5. On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3, it can be observed by this Court that a third party interest has been created by appointing one Mr. M. China Khasim i.e Respondent No.5 herein. As such, this Court ordered notice to Respondent No.5. Despite receipt of such notice on 13.12.2025, the Respondent No.5, neither entered into appearance nor represented the matter on his behalf. As such, the matter has undergone two adjournments. Even today, there is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.5. 6. Considering the fact that the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 without Show-Notice calling for an explanation from the Petitioner as well as basing upon the Report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 22.11.2025, a case has been registered against the Petitioner under Section 6-A of the EC Act, this Court feels that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, in view of the law laid down in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and the relevant portion of the said order dated 08.01.2020 extracted hereunder: 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. 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. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside proceedings in SR.No.130/2019-S5, dated 23-12-2019, passed by second respondent, suspending the authorization of petitioner, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, while setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3. In view of the same there shall be a direction to the Respondent No.3 to continue the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer by supplying essential commodities regularly. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.12.2025 KK