APHC010490152025 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: 25750/2025 Between: 1. TULASI MADHAVI, AS W/O JANARDHAN AGE43 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1331014, BHUPANAPADU VILLAGE PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PANYAM 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 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 3 Rc.No.CS/1486/2025 dt30-8-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1331014, Bhupanapadu Village, Panyam Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 2 VS,J W.P.No.25750 of 2025 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt30-8-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and 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 impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1486/2025 dt:30-8-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.1331014, Bhupanapadu Panyam Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO 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.25750 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of 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/1486/2025 dated 30-8-2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1331014, Bhupanapadu Village, Panyam Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted 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 dated 30-8-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, …” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1331014, Bhupanapadu Village, Panyam Mnadla, Nandyal District in the year 2007. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time and the same is valid up to 31.03.2027. The petitioner has been running the said Fair Price Shop without any complaints from anybody whatsoever. b) While the matter being so, on 12.08.2025 at about 12.10 p.m., the Vigilance & Enforcement Officers along with Mandal Revenue Inspector, Panyam conducted an inspection of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. Upon verifying the stock position with reference to the book balance and ground balance, it was found that there was an excess of 174 kgs of PDS rice. 4 VS,J W.P.No.25750 of 2025 Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 3rd respondent, who, in turn, on the same day i.e., 12.08.2025, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon her to submit an explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of said notice. For which, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 30.08.2025, wherein it was stated that the excess stock found during inspection was due to some cardholders who, despite executing their fingerprint capture, did not collect the rice immediately and left it at the shop with the intention of collecting it later. It was also stated that the petitioner had stored rice pertaining to her own ration card in the shop premises. c) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, despite submission of a detailed explanation on 30.08.2025, the 3rd respondent, on the very same day i.e., 30.08.2025, without duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without assigning any reasons as to why the said explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, has straight away suspended the petitioner’s authorization, vide impugned order dated 30.08.2025, merely stating that the explanation is not satisfactory, which action is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law. 3. In that regard, the Judgment in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , under similar circumstances, has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not 1 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 5 VS,J W.P.No.25750 of 2025 sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 4. 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. 5. 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 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2025. Further, the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent 6 VS,J W.P.No.25750 of 2025 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, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.09.2025 KGR