APHC010477502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25231/2025 Between: 1. SMT GOPAVARAM JYOTHI, W/O RAMATHEERTHAM AGE-45 YEARS, OCC-F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1337027, CHILAKALURU VILLAGE RUDRAVARAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RUDRAVARAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST ...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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt-29-8-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 1337027, Chilakaluru Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, VS,J W.P No.25231 of 2025 2 arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt-29-8-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass any other order this Honble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice. 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 Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rdrespondent vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt 29-8-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.1337027, Chiiakaluru Village Rudravaram Mandai, Nandyai Dist., by continuing the pettitioner as dealer as usuai, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P No.25231 of 2025 3 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: <…to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt:29-8-2025 suspending the petitioner?s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1337027, Chilakaluru Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt:29-8-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass any other order…= 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for the shop bearing No.1337027, Chilakaluru Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal District. The authorization of the petitioner has been extended from time to time and the same is valid upto 31.03.2027. 3. While the things stood thus, on 24.07.2025, the Deputy Tahsildhar, Rudravaram along with his subordinates have inspected the shop and verified the stock position comparing with the ground stock and e-pass machine and having found variation of Fortified Rice 83 kgs (+) and ICDS P.Oil 3 kgs (-) less, which are permissible variations as per the control order, 2018. Based on the 6(A) report dated 24.07.2025 of the Deputy Tahsildhar, Rudravaram, the respondent No.4 vide Rc.B/1961/2025 dated 24.07.2025 has submitted a report to the respondent No.3, who in-turn issued a show cause notice on 30.07.2025 framing three (03) charges as against the petitioner, calling for an explanation within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of such notice, as VS,J W.P No.25231 of 2025 4 to why her authorization should not be cancelled for the lapses mentioned above. However, to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has already submitted her explanation on 13.08.2025 stating that the variations founds in the petitioner?s fair price shop are within the permissible limits under the Control Order, 2018. But inspite of the same, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, even without assigning any reasons, straightaway the authorization of the petitioner was suspended by the respondent No.3 vide his proceedings in Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is >not convincing in nature and hence not considered?. In the said proceedings, the Tahsildhar was also directed to make alternative arrangements to distribute the essential commodities to the card holder of the said fair price shop. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. On perusal of the show cause notice dated 30.07.2025 and as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though in the subject portion, it refers to <report submitted for initiating disciplinary action=, but however, in the operative portion, the petitioner was directed to submit her explanation to the said show cause notice within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice, as to why her authorization should not be cancelled for the lapses. The petitioner was further directed to submit her explanation along with permanent appointment order and authorization and it VS,J W.P No.25231 of 2025 5 is also stated that if no explanation is received from the petitioner within the stipulated time, it will be construed that, the petitioner has nothing to offer and action will be taken as against the individual based on the material available on record. 6. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2025, admittedly the respondent No.3 has framed three charges against the petitioner, but, nowhere the respondent No.3 has assigned the reasons for suspending the authorization. Without assigning any reasons as to his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 13.08.2025, the respondent No.3 has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. 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.= 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 VS,J W.P No.25231 of 2025 6 7. Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, under similar circumstances has 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. Without doing so, the respondent No.3 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) VS,J W.P No.25231 of 2025 7 has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2025 are set-aside. As the petitioner has already submitted her explanation to the said show cause notice on 13.08.2025, the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and assigning reasons as to how, he is not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the said process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner till the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:26.09.2025 Ksj