1 VS,J W.P.No.24928 of 2025 APHC010463222025 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: 24928/2025 Between: 1. AKKILAGUNTA PREMAIAH, , S/O. PULLAIAH FP SHOP DEALER, SHOP.NO.0854005, R/O. MOGULLURU VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE 3. THE COLLECTORCS, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBCOLLECTORCS, KANDUKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, GUDLUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 6. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, CIVIL SUPPLY DEPORTMENT, COLLECTORATE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE 7. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANDUKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 8. S HEBSIBA, W/O. A. GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. MOGULLURU VILLAGE, GUDLURU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT'S ORDER DT. 2 VS,J W.P.No.24928 of 2025 19.11.2025 IN I.A.NO. 2 OF 2025 ...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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, to declaring the orders of 3rd respondent-Collector(CS), SPS Nellore District, dated 8-4-2025 in Rc.B2/226/2024, who confirmed the orders of 4th respondent-Sub Collector, Kandukur, dated 21-10-2024 in Rc.F/438/2023, who cancelled the authorization of the Petitioner, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Honble High Court in B.Manjula Vs.District Collector, 2015(1) L.S. 209 R.Thimmakka Vs. State of A.P., 2020(4)ALT 308 and M.Aruna Vs The District Collector, W.A. No 139/2025 and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently set-aside the proceedings of 3rd respondent-Collector(CS), SPS Nellore District, dated 8-4-2025 in RC.B2/226/2024, and also the orders of 4th respondent-Sub Collector, Kandukur, dated 21-10-2024 in Rc.F/438/2023, and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer. Shop No-0854005 of Mogallur Village, SPSR Nellore District. 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 to stay the proceeding of impugned orders 3rd respondent- Collector(CS), SPS Nellore District, dated 8-4-2025 in Rc.B2/226/2024, who confirmed the orders of 4^'^ respondent-Sub Collector, Kandukur, dated 21- 10-2024 in Rc.F/438/2023, who cancelled the authorisation of petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass 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 may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent No. 8 as Respondent No. 8 in W.P. No. 24928 of 2025 and also pending miscellaneous petitions therein and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 VS,J W.P.No.24928 of 2025 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANAKA MANASWI 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.24928 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24928/2015 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, to declaring the orders of 3rd respondent-Collector(CS), SPS Nellore District, dated 8-4-2025 in Rc.B2/226/2024, who confirmed the orders of 4th respondent-Sub Collector, Kandukur, dated 21-10-2024 in Rc.F/438/2023, who cancelled the authorization of the Petitioner, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Hon’ble High Court in B.Manjula Vs.District Collector, 2015(1) L.S. 209 R.Thimmakka Vs. State of A.P., 2020(4)ALT 308 and M.Aruna Vs The District Collector, W.A. No 139/2025 and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently set-aside the proceedings of 3rd respondent-Collector(CS), SPS Nellore District, dated 8-4-2025 in RC.B2/226/2024, and also the orders of 4th respondent-Sub Collector, Kandukur, dated 21-10-2024 in Rc.F/438/2023, and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer. Shop No- 0854005 of Mogallur Village, SPSR Nellore District.= 2. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.0854005 of Mogulluru Village, Gudlur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, having been appointed on 03.11.2005 by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur. The petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the card holders regularly and without any complaint from either the beneficiaries or the authorities and is solely dependent on the Fair Price Shop for his livelihood. 3. On 06.09.2024, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukur (7th respondent) inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and alleged excess stock of 550 Kgs of rice and 16 packets of sugar. Based on the said 5 VS,J W.P.No.24928 of 2025 allegation, the 7th respondent seized the available stock, prepared a panchanama, and submitted a report to the Sub Collector, Kandukur (4th respondent), leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 13.09.2024, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.09.2024. Thereafter, without considering the petitioner’s explanation, without conducting a personal enquiry, and without examining the MDU operator or relevant card holders, the 4th respondent passed orders dated 21.10.2024 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No.25062 of 2024, which was disposed of on 09.12.2024 granting liberty to pursue the statutory appeal. Thereafter, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent, by proceedings dated 08.04.2025 in Rc.B2/226/2024, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the cancellation order without properly considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Control Orders. 4. The petitioner contends that the alleged excess stock occurred as the uplifted commodities of card holders who had authenticated their transactions on the e-POS machine has not physically collected the commodities at the time of inspection due to their agricultural work and also that the impugned orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without proper enquiry, and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in B. Manjula v. 6 VS,J W.P.No.24928 of 2025 District Collector, R. Thimmakka v. State of A.P., and M. Aruna v. District Collector. Hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned orders of cancellation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 6. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the 4th respondent, after receipt of the report from the 7th respondent, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and provided an opportunity to submit written explanations. But however, in the said explanation, the petitioner has not properly explained the reasons for the excess stock as to why the commodities were kept in the Fair Price Shop after obtaining proper authentication of the card holders. 7. It is further observed that the alleged excess stock was retained in the custody of the petitioner after biometric authentication in the e-POS device by the card holders. Such retention without proper delivery is a violation of Clauses 10(f), 10(g), 12(e), and 12(p)(3) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, and may result in diversion of PDS commodities into the black market. The petitioner’s explanation that the stock belonged to unlifted commodities of card holders is not permissible under the rules, and the dealer cannot act independently in violation of the prescribed guidelines. 8. The 3rd respondent, in appeal, examined the records and confirmed the cancellation order on 08.04.2025. The decision of the Collector is based on proper application of mind and adherence to the provisions of the Control 7 VS,J W.P.No.24928 of 2025 Order. It is clear from the record that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims and did not prove that the cancellation order was arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of principles of natural justice. 9 Considering the above facts and the submissions made, it is evident that the petitioner has not made out any grounds for interference. The impugned orders of the 4th respondent dated 21.10.2024 and the 3rd respondent dated 08.04.2025 are found to be valid, legal, and in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a revision against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent dated 08.04.2025 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The revisional authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, without raising any objection on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 02.12.2025 JLV 8 VS,J W.P.No.24928 of 2025 341 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24928/2025 Date : 02.12.2025 JLV