APHC010083922024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4646/2024 Between: 1. S PEDDA VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/O. MUSALAIAH, HINDU, F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0813023, VENKATACHALAMPALLI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PRESENTLY KANIGIRI REVENUE DIVISION, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...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 order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings Rc.CS.2/79/2022, dated 26.11.2022 passed by the 2ND respondent confirming the orders dated 12.05.2021 and 24.03.2022 passed by the 2 VS,J W.P.No.4646 of 2024 respondents 3 and 4 by reducing only the penalty amount to Rs. 1,000/- from Rs. 5,000/- instead of allowing the revision by setting aside the orders of the respondents 3 and 4 with regard to the Petitioners F.P. Shop No. 0813023, Venkatachalampalli Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to I the Control Orders and consequently set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 proceedings Rc.CS.2/79/2022, dated 26.11.2022 passed by the 2ND respondent and the orders dated 12.05.2021 and 24.03.2022 passed by the respondents 3 and 4 with regard to the Petitioner’s F.P. Shop No. 0813023, Venkatachalampalli Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.4646 of 2024 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 order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings Rc.CS.2/79/2022, dated 26.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the orders dated 12.05.2021 and 24.03.2022 passed by the respondents 3 and 4 by reducing only the penalty amount to Rs. 1,000/- from Rs. 5,000/- instead of allowing the revision by setting aside the orders of the respondents 3 and 4 with regard to the Petitioner’s F.P. Shop No. 0813023, Venkatachalampalli Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to I the Control Orders and consequently set aside the same...” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0813023, Venkatachalampalli Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District about 30 years ago. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint and maintaining the records properly. b) While so, based on a complaint, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar inspected the petitioner’s shop on 22.06.2020. During the inspection, shortage of 34 kgs of rice and 1.5 kgs of sugar and excess stock of 13 kgs of dal and 3.5 kgs of chana were noticed, and the stocks were seized under a 4 VS,J W.P.No.4646 of 2024 panchanama dated 22.06.2020. Based on the report dated 23.06.2020, the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 29.07.2020 framing the following charges: i. That the F.P. Shop dealer kept excess stock of 13 kgs. of RG Dal and 3.5 kgs. of Channa Whole after taking figure biometric authentication in e-pos device from the card holder with an intention to divert the same into black market and thereby contravened clause 10(f) of the provision of law under A.P. State Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2018 r/w E.C. Act, 1955. ii. That the F.P. Shop dealer diverted the stock of 34 kgs. of PDS rice and 1.525 kgs of sugar into black market and thereby contravened the clause 21© of the provision of law under A.P. State Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2018 r/w E.C. Act, 1955. iii. The F.P. Shop dealer failed to maintain Stock Cum Price board in the F.P. Shop premises and thereby contravened clause 12(n) of the provision of law under A.P. State Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2018 r/w E.C. Act, 1955. c) For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Upon considering the said explanation, the 4th respondent passed an order dated 12.05.2021 holding that the 1st charge is proved and hence imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/-, while allowing the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop dealer. d) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner the 3rd respondent, without appreciating the fact that the variation shown in the first charge was well within the permissible limits, confirmed the order of the 4th respondent 5 VS,J W.P.No.4646 of 2024 vide order dated 24.03.2022, which was further confirmed in the revision preferred before the 2nd respondent vide order dated 26.11.2022, by reducing the penalty amount to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.5,000/-. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the variations noticed during inspection, i.e., shortage of 34 kgs of rice, 1.5 kgs of sugar and 13 kgs excess of dal and 3.5 kgs excess of chana are well within the permissible limits and therefore no violation is made, but without considering the same, respondents No.2 to 4 came to the conclusion that the charge is proved. 5. As can be seen from the record, an inspection was conducted by the competent authority and the shortages and excess stocks were duly noted and recorded. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and afforded due opportunity to submit his explanation. The explanation offered by the petitioner was considered by the 4th respondent, who imposed a minor penalty of Rs.5,000/- while allowing the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop dealer. The appellate and revisional authorities have independently examined the matter and confirmed the finding and the revisional authority reduced the penalty amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,000/-. 6 VS,J W.P.No.4646 of 2024 6. On careful consideration of the matter as well as the order passed by the authorities, this Court does not find any error to interfere with the revisional authority reducing the penalty to a reasonable amount and no interference is warranted by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.12.2025 KGR