APHC010067982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3564/2025 Between: 1. P.RAMA KRISHNA, S/O RATTAIAH AGE- 36 YEARS, OCC- FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.0707024, ORAVAKALLU VILLAGE ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALANADU DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, PALANADU DIST., AT NARASARAOPET. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SATTENAPALLI TOWN, PALANADU DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALANADU DIST. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR CS, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALANADU DIST. 2 VS,J W.P.NO.3564 OF 2025 6. SMT P SUNITHA, THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (CS) ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALANADU 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide R.C.No.545/2025-C dt 6-2-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0707024, Oravakallu Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu Dist., though the variation is permissible nature as per Clause 29 (a) of AP State Targeted Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2018 and 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, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt.6-2-2025 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 may be pleased Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3^'^ respondent vide R.C.No.545/202 5-C dt:6-2- 2025 in respect of FP Shop No.0707024, Oravakallu Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 2 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 to vacate the 3 VS,J W.P.NO.3564 OF 2025 Interim Order dated 10.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No. 3564 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.NO.3564 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: <….to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide R.C.No.545/2025-C dt 6-2-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0707024, Oravakallu Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu Dist., though the variation is permissible nature as per Clause 29 (a) of AP State Targeted Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2018 and 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, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt.6-2-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual.,...= 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0707024 of Oravakallu Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palanadu District, in the year 2008 by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any corner. 3. While things stood thus, due to change in the political scenario, the 5th respondent, along with her sub-ordinates and 5 VS,J W.P.NO.3564 OF 2025 local leaders, came to the petitioner’s shop and insisted the petitioner to submit his resignation. On 29.01.2025, when the petitioner refused to submit his resignation, 5th respondent, along with other subordinates prepared one statement and obtained petitioner’s signatures highhandedly as if the petitioner has agreed for variation of shortage of 102 kgs of PDS rice even without preparing any panchanama and seizure report and without issuing any stock receipt, the 5th respondent has closed the petitioner’s fair price shop. Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 06.02.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within a period of seven (07) days. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that even without waiting for a period mentioned in the show cause notice dated 06.02.2025, the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent dated 06.02.2025. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 5. When the matter came up for admission on 10.02.2025, this Court passed interim suspension as prayed for till 24.02.2025. Time and again the interim orders are extended. 6 VS,J W.P.NO.3564 OF 2025 6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, reiterating the facts raised by the petitioner and, inter alia, stating that at the time of conducting a surprise inspection of the Fair Price Shop maintained by the petitioner on 29.01.2025, the petitioner did not respond to the inspecting officer regarding the variations noticed between the entries recorded in the e-POS device and the ground stock available in the Fair Price Shop. It is further stated that, upon perusal of previous records, it came to their notice that the petitioner was in the habit of committing irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities since 2016 and that the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled by the competent authority since in the year 2016. However, nowhere in the counter-affidavit is it mentioned whether any panchanama was conducted at the time of inspection or whether any seizure report was prepared by the inspecting officials. On the other hand, very surprisingly, the counter states that the 3rd respondent, who is disciplinary authority for fair price shop dealers, took a decision to suspend the petitioner’s authorization only after perusal of the contents of the explanation submitted by the petitioner with reference to the inspection report submitted by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Atchampet, vide proceedings dated 7 VS,J W.P.NO.3564 OF 2025 06.02.2025. It is surprising to note that when both the show- cause notice and the suspension orders were issued on 06.02.2025, the question of considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passing suspension orders on the very same day does not arise. 7. In view of the same, the proceedings dated 06.02.2025 placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension is set- aside and the petitioner is at liberty to submit the explanation to the show cause notice dated 06.02.2025 duly assigning the reasons for the variations of stock as on the date of inspection and on receiving the said explanation submitted by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 02.12.2025. LSP