APHC010486742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ^ THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA I 911 WRIT PETITION NO: 25817 OF 2025 -O' O lij 73 O o. .c* Smt. Talluri Venkata Ramana,, W/o Late Narsimhulu, Aged about 52 years, Fair price shop dealer. Fair price shop No. 509008, R/o Door No. 13-34, Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. Between: ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Pradesh 2. The Sub Collector, Nuzivedu Division, Eluru District. 3. The Tahsildar, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District. Andhra ...Respondents 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No. 509008, situated in Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh or vide Rc. G/974/2025 dated. 01.09.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. lA 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 suspend flie orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Rc. G/974/2025 4. dated. 01.09.2025 by continuing the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer in fair price shop No. 509008, situated in Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following - APHC010486742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] n- Th WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25817/2025 Between; 1.SMT. TALLURI VENKATA RAMANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, FAIR PRICE SHOP NO. 509008, R/0 DOOR NO. 13-34, CHINTALAPUDI VILLAGE, CHINTALAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, W/0 LATE NARSIMHULU, ...PETITIONER AND 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2.THE SUB COLLECTOR, NUZIVEDU DIVISION, ELURU DISTRICT. 3.THE TAHSILDAR, CHINTALAPUDI MANDAL, ELURU 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the of the petitioner fair price shop No. 509008, situated in direction authorization Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh vide Rc. G/974/2025 dated. 01.09.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such vs W.P No.25817 of 20. 2 lA 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 orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Rc. G/974/2025 dated. 01.09.2025 by continuing the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer in fair price shop No. 509008, situated in Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES f VS,J W.P No.25817 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No.509008, situated in Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh vide Rc.G/974/2025 dated. 01.09.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such any other order or orders...” The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for the shop 2. bearing No.509008 situated in Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been running the Fair Price Shop in accordance with all the rules and regulations prescribed by the Government. While the matter stood thus, on 01.09.2025, the respondent No.2 issued 3. a show cause notice, basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildhar on 30.04.2025. The report alleges that the Tahsildhar informed the respondent No.2 that, on 04.04.2025, the Vigilance Officials inspected the petitioner’s shop and found variations in the physical stock. Consequently, a case was filed under Section 6A of the E.C Act, 1955 for the said variations, a single charge was framed. The petitioner was called upon to submit an explanation within seven (07) days from the date of the receipt of the show cause notice. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that, without waiting for a 4. reasonable time to submit the explanation to the said show cause notice, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned orders, on the same day i.e., on VS,J ^ W.P No. 25817 of 2025 V 4 01.09.2025, suspending the petitioner’s authorization. Further, considering the request made by the respondent No.3 on 30.04.2025 for appointing a person to distribute the essential commodities, the respondent No.2 appointed Sri Sandipamu Moshe, VRA, Chintalapudi, as the F.P Shop in-charge to distribute the essential commodities of the petitioner’s shop to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders. 5. Fleard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Upon perusal of the proceedings vide Rc.G/974/2025 dated 01.09.2025 of the Sub-Collector i.e., respondent No.2, it is evident that at the request of the respondent No.3, the VRA, Chinthalapudi was appointed as the in-charge to distribute the essential commodities and the said proceedings does not mention the charge framed against the petitioner, except stating that “therefore the following charge is framed against the dealer” and further, action was initiated solely basing upon the report submitted by the Tahsildhar on 30.04.2025 for initiating action under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which itself formed as a basis for issuing show cause notice and calling for an explanation from the petitioner. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned show cause notice dated 01.09.2025, it can be observed that, though it is titled as “Disciplinary action-Show Cause Notice-Issued", but it refers only to the case filed under Section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 for stock variations found during inspection on 04.04.2025. VS.J W.P No.25817 of 2025 5 This Court has consistently held that two reports are required to be submitted by the Tahsildhar one for initiating 6(A) proceedings under Section 6(A) of the E.C Act, 1955 and another for initiating disciplinary proceedings against dealer. However, in the present case, only one report appears to have been submitted by the Tahsildhar for initiating 6(A) proceedings under E.C Act 1955, basing upon which a show cause notice was issued for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of view that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the order, dated 8. t 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and the relevant portion of the said order, reads as under: ...When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. 9. 10. As per Clause ‘q’ of Circular Memo issued by Commissioner, Civil Supplies in No.21/100/2015-AD.1 PP&CCS dated 28.09.2015, proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are liable for confiscation or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorization to be issued, based on report. In view of memo and requirement under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order passed by second respondent cannot be sustained, consequently the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20 (i) of Control Order, 2018. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside proceedings in SR.No. 130/2019- S5, dated 23-12-2019, passed by second respondent, suspending the authorization of petitioner, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i> of Control Order. There shall be no order as to costs. vs,. W.p No.25817 of 2025% 6 9. As seen from the impugned proceedings,sisince no separate report was , the impugned are contrary to It is also pertinent to mention here mentions “interim suspension any clear statement placing the appointing a VRA as in-charge for filed by the Tahsildhar for initiation of disciplinary action proceedings dated 01.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2 Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018. that, though the subject of the impugned order of authorization in order does not contain petitioner under suspension. Merely distribution of essential commodities cannot be construed as suspension of the petitioner’s authorization. 10. In view of the above discussion and in the absence of by the Tahsildhar for initiation of disciplinary proceedings dated 01.09.2025 issued by respondent show cause notice Control Order, 2018. The respondents authorization as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, continue distribution of essential commodities forthwith a separate report proceedings, the impugned No.2, as well as the are set aside, as being contrary to Clause 20(i) of the are directed to restore the petitioner’s Shop No.509008, Chintalapudi and to permit the petitioner to 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Sub Collector, Nuzivedu Division, Eluru District. 3. The Tahsildar. Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, Secretariat, SRI. K SRINIVAS Advocate (OPUC) pradesh SUPPLIES High Court of Andhra Kraaesn One CC to Two CCS to GP FOR CIVIL [OUT] Two CD Copies. 4. 5. 6. AL HIGH COURT DATED:24/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 25817 OF 2025 0 5 NOV 2025 p Section^V '''■Sssfiaifiss^ o Co ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS