APHC010458872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24191/2025 Between: 1. S K SOMLA NAIK, S/O. RISE NAIK, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. H.NO. 5-4, KALE NAYAK THANDA, PASUPULA VILLAGE, BANGANAPALLI MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL 2. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, BANAGANAPALLI MANDAL, NANDYAL 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 pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.D.CS.630/2025, dated 29.08.2025, in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price Shop No. 1344018 of Pasupula Village, Banganapalli Mandal, Nandyal District basing on the 6-A report issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant 2 VS,J W.P.NO.24191 OF 2025 disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent and pas 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1344018 of Pasupula Village, Banganapalli Mandal, Nandyal District by suspending the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.D.CS.630/2025, dated 29.08.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.24191 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.D.CS.630/2025, dated 29.08.2025, in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price Shop No.1344018 of Pasupula Village, Banganapalli Mandal, Nandyal District basing on the 6-A report issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent and pass..” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer on a permanent basis in the year 1986 for Shop No.1344018 in Pasupula Village, Banganapalli Mandal, Nandyal District. The petitioner’s authorization was being renewed from time to time, and the same has been subsisting till 31.03.2027. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint, either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities. 4. While the matter being so, on 26.06.2025, the Revenue officials, i.e., the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar (C.S.D.T.), Banaganapalli, and the Village Revenue Officer, Pasupula village, along with others, have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop. During the inspection, they identified variations in the quantity of PDS rice and sugar. Basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, dated 26.06.2025, the Revenue Divisional Officer/3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 22.07.2025, calling for explanation from the petitioner, within a period of seven (07) days, for which, the petitioner has 4 VS,J W.P.NO.24191 OF 2025 submitted an explanation on 07.08.2025, duly stating that the petitioner had never committed any irregularities since the date of his appointment. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that except referring to the explanation dated 08.08.2025 submitted by him in the impugned proceedings, respondent No.3 did not assign any reasons in the impugned proceedings as to how he is not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Civil Supplies. 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2025, admittedly the 3rd respondent has framed one charge against the petitioner, but, nowhere the 3rd respondent has assigned the reasons for suspending the authorization. Without assigning any reasons as to his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others1, it was observed as under: “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 5 VS,J W.P.NO.24191 OF 2025 not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 8. Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, under similar circumstances has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 9. 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 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 6 VS,J W.P.NO.24191 OF 2025 to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.D.CS.630/2025 dated 29.08.2025, and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, until the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :10.09.2025 LSP 7 VS,J W.P.NO.24191 OF 2025 241 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24191/2025 Date :10.09.2025 LSP