IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTHDAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ' THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2000 OF 2025 Between: Gudipati James, S/o Devasahayam, Age: 48 years, Occ: FP shop dealer Of Shop No.0837020, Nallaguntal Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam 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), Prakasam Dist., at Ongole. 3. The Sub Collector, MarkapurTown, Prakasam Dist. 4. The Tahsildar, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 5. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, GiddalurTown, Prakasam Dist. ...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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3'" respondent vide Rc.C/921/2024 dt: 18-1-2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the FP Shop No.0837020, Nallaguntal Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam 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 one from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt: 18-1-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual. 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 to Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3 vide Rc.C/921/2024 dt;18-1- 2025 in respect of FP Shop No.0837020, Nallaguntal Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam Dist by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: rd respondent APHC010039492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2000/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Gudipati James AND ...RESPONDENT{S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for 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 3''^ respondent vide Rc.C/921/2024 dated 18.1.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the fair price shop No.0837020, Nallaguntal Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam Dist without assigning any valid reasons and without following the 2 BSB,J ^ W.P.No.2000 of202b procedure as contemplated under A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 Targeted Public apart from violation consequentially set 18.01.2025 by directing the respondents to continue petitioner as fair price shop dealer as usual and pass such other order of the principles of natural justice and aside the impugned order dated or orders... briefly as follows; submitted that without duly petitioner is the of 2. The case The learned counsel for petitioner conducting the enquiry, the official authorities highhandedly obtained the signatures of the villagers on blank paper with an impression that the required for providing electricity poles and on realizing the signatures were all such villagers submitted another letter in support of the dealer that shown by the officials. He further same they had not signed the statement as submitted that the high officials by submitting the complaint in Spandana programme under additional complaint was also lodged with the SC & handed action of the officials had been represented to the higher acknowledgment and an forwarded to the Collector for necessary action and false case was filed against ST commission which was all such conduct of the dealer would show that a petitioner and the impugned order was illegally passed. the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the (written 3. The instructions and denied all such allegations. submitted that the dealer is ready to offer all the witnesses for enquiry and a fair enquiry may be conducted as directed by this Court in the case of C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others v. Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Civil The learned counsel for petitioner 4. \ The State of Andhra 3 BSB,J W.P.No.2000 of202.. Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others^ “27. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order, (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority 2015 see Online Hyd 680 : (2015) 6 AID 359 : (2015) 6 ALT 791 4 BSB, J W.P.No.2000 of 2025 to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated: (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal, (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.” In view of the serious allegations and counter allegations, this matter requires a detailed enquiry as held in the above decision. As such, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3'"'^ respondent to expeditiously conduct enquiry in the light of the above cited decision within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the impugned proceeding gets set aside without any further order. 5. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principle Secretary Civil Supplies Department,State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Collector (CS), Prakasam Dist. 3. The Sub Collector, MarkapurTown, Prakasam Dist. 4. The Tahsildar, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 5. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, GiddalurTown, Prakasam Dist. 6. One CC to SRI. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies at Ongole. High Court Of Andhra PRK HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2000 of 2025 S 2^ FEB 2025 \ Current Section . ^ DISPOSING OF THE WP, WITHOUT COSTS