APHC010487012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24845/2025 Between: 1. VENUPUSA NAGA PRASAD, S/O. GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1137014, NALLAGUTTAPALLI VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTY. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 4. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. 5. 5. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.NO.24845 OF 2025 ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the order in proceedings in in Ref.No.Dl/1130/2025, dated 04.09.2025 (impugned order) issued by the Respondent No.3 issued by the Respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative ofthe fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14,19,21 and 3 00 -A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same drop all further proceedings in ofthe disciplinary action which is initiated 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 to continue me as the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the order in proceedings in in Ref.No.Dl/1130/2025, dated 04.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 issued by the Respondent No. 3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.24845 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in proceedings in in Ref.No.Dl/1130/2025, dated 04.09.2025 (“impugned order”) issued by the Respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same drop all further proceedings in pursuance of the disciplinary action which is initiated....” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1137014 situated in Nallaguttapalli Village, Ramapuram Mandal in the year 2014 vide proceedings No.Ref.No.C/639/2014, dated 28.07.2014 on compassionate grounds. Since then the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders allotted to his shop without any contravention whatsoever. There are no complaints in relation to the distribution of essential commodities. The petitioner’s authorization is being extended from time to time, and is subsisting as on today. 4 VS,J W.P.NO.24845 OF 2025 3. While so, on 15.08.2025, the respondent authorities conducted inspection in the said shop and found variations in respect of 106 kgs of rice, 7Kgs of sugar and 34 Kgs of ragi flour and accordingly the subject stock was seized and handed over to the Village Revenue Officer. Pursuant to the said inspection, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 26.08.2020 calling for his explanation for contravention of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, within a period of seven (7) days, failing which, necessary orders will be passed. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.09.2025 to the said show cause notice stating that the variation of the stock as pointed out is within the permissible limits and that the commodity of ragi powder was in fact handed over to the respondent way back in the year 2022. Surprisingly, the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoti, basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Ramapuram Mandal, passed the orders dated 04.09.2025 suspending the fair price shop of the petitioner pending enquiry for the irregularities committed by the petitioner, as per the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is came to be filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.24845 OF 2025 5. On perusal of the material on record, the explanation of the petitioner would show that the petitioner specifically stated that there was an excess of 106 Kgs of forfeited rice which had not been distributed. Similarly, there were seven packets of sugar in excess are lying with him, as the senior citizens above 62 years had not collected their essential commodities. Further, there were 34 packets of ragi flour which had already been returned to the godowns three years ago, but due to some technical issue, the returned ragi flour packets was not reflected in the e-pos system. 6. As seen from the impugned order of the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer it does not appear that the reasons assigned by the petitioner in his explanation dated 03.09.2025 was properly considered. Mere passing of orders without considering the explanation given by the petitioner and only basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar without any substantial proof and also without any reasons as to how the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, is against the principles of natural justice. 6 VS,J W.P.NO.24845 OF 2025 7. In similar circumstances, in K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others1, this Court held as follows: “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.” 8. In similar circumstances, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2, this Court also categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 VS,J W.P.NO.24845 OF 2025 9. In the instant case, since the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended by the 3rd respondent without considering the explanation given by the petitioner as well as without any reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set- aside. 10. Accordingly, the writ petitioner is allowed and the impugned proceedings No.Ref.No.C/639/2014, dated 28.07.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration after considering the explanation given by the petitioner and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Till the necessary orders are passed as ordered above, the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner is continued and the respondent authorities shall supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 15.09.2025 LSP 8 VS,J W.P.NO.24845 OF 2025 540 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24845/2025 15.09.2025 LSP