APHC010509822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26231/2025 Between: 1. RAMISETTY SURYA SRAVANTHI, W/O CHINNABABU, AGERD. 30 YEARS, OCC. TEMPORARY DEALER, FP SHOP NO. 0411014, YERRAVARAM VILLAGE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PEDDAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, YELESWARAM MANDAL, KAKINADA 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 or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order in Ref.A/686/2025, dated 15.09.2025, as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice consequentially direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as the Temporary Dealer of FP Shop No. 0411014, Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, by 2 VS,J W.P.No.26231 of 2025 suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent, and 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 direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as the Temporary Dealer of FP Shop No. 0411014, Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, by suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.26231 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 or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order in Ref.A/686/2025, dated 15.09.2025, as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice consequentially direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as the Temporary Dealer of FP Shop No. 0411014, Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, by suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent….” 2. Brief facts of the case as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0411014, Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, Kakinada District, on 10.12.2020. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaints. b) While the matter being so, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent issued the impugned order vide Ref.A/686/2025, dated 15.09.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry and also directing the Tahsildar, Yeleswaram to make alternative arrangements with regard to the distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the 2nd respondent solely basing on the reports submitted by the Tahsildar on 10.07.2025 and 24.07.2025 has placed the petitioner’s authorization under 4 VS,J W.P.No.26231 of 2025 suspension, even without issuing a show-cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the reports of the Tahsildar were not furnished to her. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the record, it is clear that the impugned suspension order dated 15.09.2025 was passed by the 2nd respondent without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even without issuing any show- cause notice calling for an explanation. Admittedly, the suspension was ordered solely based on the reports submitted by the Tahsildar dated 10.07.2025 and 24.07.2025, even without furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. In view of the same, as the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization was issued without following due process of law and without issuing a show- cause notice, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings vide Ref. A/686/2025 dated 15.09.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent, are hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if she is found to have violated any of the conditions stipulated under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 5 VS,J W.P.No.26231 of 2025 2018, by following due process of law. The respondents are further directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner till initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.09.2025 KGR