1 APHC010477492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25108/2025 Between: 1. V SUDARSHAN REDDY, S/O HANUMANTH REDDY AGE 54 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1349042, VALASALA VILLAGE DONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 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, DHONE DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, VALASALA VILLAGE, DHONE MANDAL NANDYAL DIST. 7. MR N RAVI KUMAR, TAHSILDAR, DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. 8. C MASTHAN, REVENUE INSPECTOR, DHONE MANDAL NANDYAL 2 DIST. 9. T THIMMAPPA, VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, VALASALA VILLAGE DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DIT. 10. SMT VANJA PEDDULAMMA, W/O V.VENKATESH AGE 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO.10-8A, VALASALA VILLAGE DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 topleased 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/127/2025 dt 25-8-2025 suspending the petitioner authorization in respect of the FP Shop No. 1349042, Valasala Village, Done Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure Public Distribution Systemas contemplated under AP State Targeted (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 25-8-2025 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/127/2025 dt:25- 8-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1349042, Valasala Village, Done 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): 3 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. RAJU GUBBALA The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: This 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/127/2025 dt 25-8-2025 suspending the petitioner authorization in respect of the FP Shop No. 1349042, Valasala Village, Done Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure Public Distribution Systemas contemplated under AP State Targeted (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 25-8-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass...” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1349042, Valasala village, Done mandal, Nandyal district in the year 2010 and his authorisation of the fair price shop is valid up to 31.03.2027. Ever since, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. Earlier, the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop was suspended on 06.02.2025 by the 3rd respondent which was challenged by the petitioner by way of W.P.No.5013 of 2025 and this Court, on 24.02.2025 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the suspension order issued in favour of the petitioner, as the same was without assigning any reasons. 5 4. While the matter stood thus, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 09.07.2025 and found certain discrepancies in the ground stock. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation, to which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 04.08.2025 denying the alleged inspection conducted on 09.07.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is that without even considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization and as well as suspending the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 18.09.2025, this Court has passed the following interim order: “Therefore, there shall be an interim direction suspending the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3. In view of the suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2025, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner.” 6. Heard Sri. M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri. Raju Gubbala, learned counsel for the caveator. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 of the 3rd respondent, it can be seen that initially, vide Rc.B/60/2025, dated 11.07.2025, 6 the Tahsildar, Dhone has submitted a report to the 3rd respondent that he along with Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Inspector have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop No.1349042, Valasala village of Dhone mandal on 09.07.2025 and found deficiency of 624 kilograms of Rice and 13 packets of Sugar (1/2 kilograms each). Thereafter, a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was also initiated against the petitioner. It is further stated in the impugned proceedings that when the petitioner was suspended earlier vide proceedings dated 06.02.2025, he has approached this Court vide W.P.No.5013 of 2025 wherein, this Court has set- aside the proceedings dated 06.02.2025, pursuant to which, the petitioner herein was reinstated vide proceedings dated 20.03.2025. It is stated that though the petitioner was reinstated, he is committing irregularities as was reported by the Tahsildar, Dhone. As such, the petitioner was issued as show cause notice calling for his explanation for five charges. After referring to the charges framed against the petitioner, it was stated that as under: “In view of the above lapses committed by the FP shop dealer, the authorization of Sri.V.Sudarshan Reddy F.P Shop Dealer, F.P Shop No.1349042 of Valasala Village of Dhone Mandal, Nandayl District is hereby cancelled and Sri.V.Sudarshan Reddy F.P Shop Dealer, F.P Shop No.1349042 is hereby Suspended.” 8. It is clear from the above that after extracting the charges framed against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has directly cancelled the 7 authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop and has suspended the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, which established the fact that the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings without application of mind as to whether he intends to suspend or cancel the petitioner’s authorisation. Further, though the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 04.08.2025 was referred in the reference, nothing was elicited in the impugned proceedings as to the satisfaction of the 3rd respondent over the explanation submitted, which is against the principles of natural justice. Merely citing that the petitioner was issued show cause notice by framing five charges, does not confer any power on the 3rd respondent to straightaway cancel or suspend the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership. 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 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.” 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 8 9. 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 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. 10. 10. 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 dated 25.08.2025, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2025 are set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry 9 in the light of the observations made herein. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Petition, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:17.10.2025 Gss