% IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ II n TV OO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3580 OF 2025 Between: Sri Kondrothu Eswara Rao, S/o Neelakantam, Aged about 38 Years, Occ. F.P shop Dealer, F.P;Shop No.0223029, R/o. Pattikayavalasa Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary To Government, Civil Supplies Department at Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 1. The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District 2. 3. The Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Proceedings Vide RC No.06/2025/DT/dt 01.02.2025 suspending the authorization petitioner's Fair Price Shop for the F.P. No. 0223029, Pattikayavalasa Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District, without mentioning the suspension period and not follow the procedure and in spite of subsisting the petitioner's F.P.shop authorization as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, unsustainable and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, by setting-aside same and consequently direct the respondents No. 2 to 5 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the F.P. Shop No. 0223029 Pattikayavalasa Village, Cheepurupalli Vizianagaram District. may of the Mandal lA 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 to direct respondents No. 2 to 5 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the F.P. Shop No.0223029 Situated iin Pattikayavalasa Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District, for distribution to the Cardholders by suspending the proceedings issued by the 3’''^ respondent pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJU GUBBALA Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010068252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3580/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Kondrothu Eswara Rao AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAJU GUBBALA it- • Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J W.P.No.3580 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: ...to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order to declare the action of the 3"'^ respondent in issuing Proceedings vide Rc.No.06/2025/DT, suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop for the F.P No.0223029, Pattikayavalasa Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District, without mentioning the suspension period and not following the procedure and in spite of subsisting the petitioner’s F.P shop dt.01.02.2025 authorization as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, unsustainable and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, by setting aside same and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the F.P Shop No.0223029, Pattikayavalasa Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District and to pass such other or further orders as the Hon’ble Court feels deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Heard Sri Raju Gubbala, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is a dealer of fair price shop No.0223029, Pattikayavalasa village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3 BSB,J W.P.No.3580 of 2025 On 09.01.2025, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar and Mandal Revenue Inspector, Cheepurupalli Mandal, inspected the shop of the petitioner basing on the complaint made by Dannana Satyarao on 31.12.2024. The authorities alleged that there was variation of stock, viz., deficit of PDS rice fortified 109 kgs, deficit of 30 kgs of Ragi powder, 30 kgs of MDM fortified rice, 1 kg MDM jaggery, 1 kg MDM Ragi powder. The inspecting authorities failed to conduct proper enquiry and did not get e.pos stock slip. The 4*^ respondent submitted a report to the 3^^^ respondent-RDO, Cheepurupalli, vide Rc.No. 17/2025/CS, dt. 18.01.2025, which is a crucial document not served on the petitioner to submit proper reply to the show-cause notice, dated 23.01.2025, issued by the 3'“'^ respondent. However, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the 3'”'^ respondent within the time fixed denying the allegations and explaining the variation and the facts. Thereafter, the 3''^ respondent did not initiate any further steps to conduct enquiry. Without valid enquiry, the 3'"'^ respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the variation in the stock of fortified rice is within the permissible limits as per clause 29(a) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. He further submitted that variation in the other stock is also incorrect. Moreover, they are not to such an extent so as to take a harsh step of suspending the authorization. 4. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions, which are copies of show- cause notice, order of suspension and the explanation. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.3580 of 2025 6. This Court in K.Prabhavathi vs. State of A.P. and others\ hed at paragraph No.9 held as follows: 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.” 9. In the light of the above decision, when the impugned order is examined, it is bereft of reasons as to why suspension is required. 7. 8. In C. Durga Srinivas Rao and Ors. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.^, it was held at para No.26 as follows: “26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the W.P.No.1466 of 2020, dt.24.02.2020 '2015(6) ALD 359 5 BSB, J W.P.No.3580 of 2025 decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. "(i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her cause explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., containing serious charges, which may attract the one, cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order, (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by'him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prov^ 6 BSB, J W.P.No.3580 of 2025 t charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order, (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal, (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning." 9. In view of the above legal proposition, the Writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order, however, leaving it open to the authorities to conduct enquiry as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall^tand closed.. SD/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary To Government, Civil Supplies Department at Secretariat, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District 4. The Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli IVIandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. .1 6. One CC to Sri Raju Gubbala, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. MBT . i V # < ■ -i: HIGH COURT DATED;25/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3580 of 2025 p 2 5 FEI 2025 | . Current Section DISPOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS