APHC010542552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28357/2025 Between: 1. BALAGA SRIRAMULU, S/O LATE KURAMANNA, AGED- 77 YEARS, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER R/O KARAJADA VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. JOINT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.2033/2025/CS, dt. 30-09-2025 passed by the 3RD respondent thereby suspended the authorization of the petitioners Fair Price Shop No.0119011 situated in Karajada Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting enquiry, without considering my explanation dt. 19-09-2025 and without 2 VS,J W.P.No.28357 of 2025 recording reasons for suspension of authorization, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 30-09-2025 and direct the respondents particularly respondents to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholdersand to 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 to suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.2033/2025/CS, dt. 30-09-2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 0119011 situated in Karajada Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.28357 of 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is 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 declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.2033/2025/CS, dt. 30-09-2025 passed by the 3rdrespondent thereby suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0119011 situated in KarajadaVillage, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting enquiry, without considering the petitioner’s explanation dt. 19-09-2025 and without recording reasons for suspension of authorization, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 30.09.2025 and direct the respondents particularly respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders...= 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for shop No.0119011 situated in KarajadaVillage, Srikakulam Mandal and District by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam Division in the year 1970. The petitioner’s authorization is subsisting till 31.03.2026. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders, without any complaints from any corner. 4 VS,J W.P.No.28357 of 2025 b) While the things stood thus, due to change of Government in the State of Andhra Pradesh and due to local village political pressure, the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies and Village Revenue Officer, Karajada Village, conducted a surprise check in the petitioner’s fair price shop on 11.08.2025 and found some variations. Accordingly, basing on a report dated 11.08.2025 submitted by the Tahisldar, Srikakulam, the 3rd respondent issued a show- cause notice vide proceedings Rc.No.2033/2025/CS, dated 12.09.2025, calling for an explanation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of notice, framing three charges against the petitioner. For which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 19.09.2025 denying the allegations. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without furnishing the report submitted by the Tahsildar, without conducting any enquiry, or considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has suspended the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings Rc.No.2033/2025/CS, dated 30.09.2025. It is further contended that, except stating that the petitioner’s explanation is found to be not satisfactory, no reasons have been assigned to arrive at such a conclusion. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 4. In view of the above, the petitioner’s case squarely falls within the observation made in the judgment in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra 5 VS,J W.P.No.28357 of 2025 Pradesh1, wherein, under similar circumstances, it was categorically held that the reasons for coming to a 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. In the present case, without doing so, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.09.2025 1 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 6 VS,J W.P.No.28357 of 2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner’ as such, the same has to be set-aside. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings Rc.No.2033/2025/CS, dated 30.09.2025. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent to fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry in the light of the observations made herein. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop till the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 16.10.2025 KGR