0APHC010665052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34446/2025 Between: 1.V PRABHAVATHI, , W/O. V.MADHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1026019, R/0.D.N0.1-95A, C.GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5.THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2 The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.34446 of 2025 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide K/1306/2025 dated 05.12.2025 by canceling/ terminating the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No.1026019 held by the petitioner at C. Gollapalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District without there being any valid reason, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No.1026019 of C.Gollapalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District and as pass…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for F.P. Shop No.1026019 situated at C.Gollapalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District in the year 2018 on a temporary basis. The petitioner’s authorization has been renewed from time to time. The petitioner has also been distributing the commodities to the card holders without complaints whatsoever till today. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 05.11.2025, the 5th respondent along with other officers inspected the petitioner’s shop and found that there was a variation of -96 kgs of PDS rice and found that the petitioner was using a basket for weighing the commodities, showing more weight than the actual weight of the 3 commodities, and they seized the stock. The 4th respondent directed the 5th respondent to make alternative arrangements for the distribution of ECS for the convenience of the card holders for the smooth running of the public distribution system. Basing on the report submitted by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 13.11.2025, directing the petitioner to appear before him on 17.11.2025 at 11.00 AM to offer her explanation. On the said date, the petitioner could not appear before the 4th respondent and made a request to grant one week additional time to submit her explanation, and again on 17.11.2025, the 4th respondent issued a 2nd show-cause notice directing the petitioner to appear before him on 24.11.2025 at 11.00 AM. Pursuant to which, the petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent and submitted a detailed explanation on 24.11.2025. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that the 4th respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without conducting the enquiry, has straightaway cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 05.12.2025. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of instructions of the 4th respondent, wherein the facts stated by the petitioner are reiterated and stated that due to irregularities of the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities, the temporary appointment orders of the FP shop dealer of FP shop No.1026019, Tirupathi Rural Mandal have been cancelled vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi and 4 further to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders, Village Revenue Officer, C.Gollapalli, Tirupathi Rural Mandal is authorized to distribute the essential commodities for the FP Shop No.1026019, C.Gollapalli, Tirupathi Rural Mandal. 7. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be understood that basing on the report submitted by the 5th respondent dated 13.11.2025, initially a show- cause notice was issued by the 4th respondent and thereafter another show- cause notice dated 17.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner directing her to appear before him and to submit her explanation, duly framing five charges as under:- 1. There is a shortage of PDS rice of -96 kgs in the FP Shop No.1026019, C. Gollapalli Village of Tirupathi Rural Mandal. 2. The petitioner has not executed a stock board in front of the FP shop. 3. Prices of essential commodities are not mentioned on the notice board. 4. The petitioner failed to maintain proper accounts and thus violated clause 22(VIII) of APSPDS (Control) Order 2008. 5. The petitioner is using a basket to weigh commodities, resulting in discrepancies in weighment. 8. The petitioner has given a clear explanation to each and every charge; however, without assigning any reasons on the explanation submitted by the petitioner and simply stating that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory and beyond facts, the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled, and on the other hand, the 4th respondent also directed the 5th respondent to make alternative arrangements for the distribution of essential commodities for the convenience of the card holders. The 5th respondent handed over the Fair Price Shop to the Village Revenue Officer, C.Gollapalli, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders to avoid inconvenience. 5 9. 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.” 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 05.12.2025. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from conducting a detailed enquiry by giving fresh notice to the petitioner and by affording an opportunity of hearing. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :10.12.2025 MH/JLSR 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 6 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 08 WRIT PETITION No.34446 of 2025 Date :10.12.2025 MH/JLSR