IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29401 OF 2024 Between: P Kavitha, W/o. P. Prabhakar Reddy, Aged about years, Occ. Fair Shop Dealer, R/o. D. No. Obulareddy Village, Talupula Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri Division, Sri Satya Sai District. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 2. 3. ...Respondents 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2^^^ respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No. 1239020 situated at Talupula Village, Talupula Mandal, Satya Sai District, vide RC No. C/148/2024. Dated 29.11.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. lA 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 to suspend the orders passed by the 2"^^ respondent vide RC No. c/148/2024. Dated 29.11.2024 and by directing the 2 nd and 3^'^ respondent to continue the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer vide F.P shop No. 1239020 situated at Talupula Village, Talupula Mandal, Satya Sai District ^ di§posal of the above Writ Petition. •V J : J?, A- - Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRI NIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: '•w. f %• '* ' % APHC010562132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29401/2024 [3459] Between: P Kavitha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K SRI NIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 JS,J W.P.No.29401 of2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following relief: .-to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the action of the 2'^^ respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop No. 1239020 situated at Talupula Village, Talupula Mandal, Satya Sai District, vide Rc.No.C/148/2024, dated 29.11.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders ” 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for Satya Sai District since 2019. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks. While so, due to influence of some local political leaders, the revenue officials along with panchayatdars inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 29.08.2024 and submitted a report to the respondent regarding variation of stock. Based on the report submitted by the 3'^^ respondent, the 2’^^ respondent has issued show cause notice vide Rc.No.C/148/2024 dated 08.10.2024 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation on or before 18.10.2024. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on JS,J W.P.No.29401 of 2024 18.10.2024. The 2"^ respondent has issued Rc.No.C/148/2024 on 29.11.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s shop, which is impugned in the present writ petition. proceedings vide 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that show notice was issued framing single charge that the petitioner has violated clause 12 (p) (3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 respondent has suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop on the sole ground that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The 2^^ respondent being judicial authority must give proper reasons specifying the need to place the petitioner under suspension. Reference No.3 of the impugned proceeding refers that the husband of the petitioner has submitted explanation on 28.10.2024. Whereas the impugned proceedings were issued that the petitioner has not submitted the explanation, which clearly goes to show that the impugned proceedings were issued without application of mind. The authorities vested with discretionary power are expected to consider each on its own merits without restricting their discretion by adopting a uniform policy applicable to all cases. cause The 2^^ a quasi case 4 JS,J W.P.No.29401 of2024 The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies 4. submits that the impugned order was passed since the variation is above the permissible limits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the 5. judgment passed by this Court in K. Prabhavathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others^ wherein at para Nos. 10 & 11 it was held as follows: “10. Then, the next important aspect is that though the prior show cause notice is not mandatory, suspension shall not be made as a matter of course but the authority shall apply its mind in respect of the irregularities alleged against the dealer and form an opinion as to whether placing the dealer under suspension is imperative and whether such suspension will help to conduct the disciplinary enquiry in a fair manner so as to prevent the errant dealer from meddling with the enquiry and tampering the evidence of the complaint The authorities shall also consider that if the dealer is permitted to continue his dealership pending enquiry whether there is any possibility of his continuing his misdeeds such as black-marketing the essential commodities, not properly distributing the commodities to the cardholders and thereby causing inconvenience to them etc. If the authorities apprehend that the dealer may indulge in such activities, then by giving cogent reasons it 1 2020 see Online AP 755 JS,J W.P.No. 29401 of 2024 0"' may place the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, running the risk of repetition, it must be emphasized, though under Rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 the appointing authority has power to suspend the authorization of a dealer pending disciplinary enquiry, however such power shall be exercised with utmost care and circumspection. 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. ” Since the 2^^ respondent has issued the impugned proceedings in a casual approach which signifies non-application of mind, the same 6. are liable to be set aside. 6 ^ ■ JS,J W.P.No.29401 of 2024 In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 29.11.2024, by directing the 2^^ respondent to conduct enquiry by following due procedure contemplated under law, without being influenced by the observations in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar closed. //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Princioal Secretary, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies ^ ■ DepaSt slate of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Divisional Officer, Kadiri Division, Sri Satya Sai District. 2. The Revenue Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District 3. The 4. One CC to Sri K Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CCS to GP for 6. Two CD Copies RAM •s • HIGH COURT . DATED:07/04/2025 i 0! MAY 2025 ^ . Currant Section . ^ ORDER WP.No.29401 of 2024 a DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS