APHC010501142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25911/2025 Between: 1. V.ANJANAMMA, W/o Srinivasulu, Aged 49 years, Occ:F.P. Shop Dealer of Shop No.1135019, R/o.Mahadevapalli Village, Chakrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh and 4 others. ...RESPONDENT 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 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 VS,J W.P.No.25911 of 2025 This 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Ref.No.I/984/2025 dated 23.08.2025 by suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1135019, Mahadevapalli Village, Chakrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without there being any valid reason, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without providing opportunity of personal hearing, without proper enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. Shop No.1135019, Mahadevapalli Village, Chakrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District….” 2. Brief facts of the case as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1135019, Mahadevapalli Village, Chakrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in the year 1995. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. The petitioner has also paid challan for renewal of her licence on 04.10.2024. Thereafter the 5th respondent recommended renewal of the petitioner’s licence to the 4th respondent through proceedings dated Ref.No.B/04/2025, dated 01.04.2025. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without complaints from anybody. 3 VS,J W.P.No.25911 of 2025 b) While the matter being so, due to local village politics, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by framing two charges as against the petitioner. Challenging the said suspension order dated 20.01.2025, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.2604 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 19.02.2025, directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated as Fair Price Shop dealer by revoking the suspension orders pending final orders by the 3rd respondent on 22.03.2025. c) Thereafter, once again the 3rd respondent basing on a report submitted by the Tahisldar, Chakrayapeta on 03.07.2025, framed two charges as against the petitioner and issued a show-cause notice dated 17.07.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner on or before 23.07.2025, for which the petitioner submitted her explanation on 23.07.2025. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent once again issued another show-cause notice on 06.08.2025 directing the petitioner to attend a personal hearing on 13.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m. at the Revenue Divisional Office, Pulivendula. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the authority and submitted her explanation. In spite of the same, the 3rd respondent, even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, straight away, vide impugned proceedings dated 23.08.2025, suspended the petitioner’s authorization stating that “the petitioner has not submitted any valid reasons. Hence, the explanation of the FP shop dealer is 4 VS,J W.P.No.25911 of 2025 not convincing”. Challenging the said impugned proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. A perusal of the show-cause notices, it can be observed that solely basing on the report of the Tahsildar on 03.07.2025, the 3rd respondent issued show-cause notices to the petitioner calling for an explanation. However, nowhere it is mentioned in the show-cause notices as to who gave the complaint as against the petitioner and as to what is the complaint. Further, though the respondents have conducted an inspection over the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop, the show-cause notice is silent as to whether any variation was found in the stock. Having issued a show-cause notice dated 17.07.2025, there was no necessity for the 3rd respondent to once again issued a show- cause notice on 06.08.2025 for the same charges. It is also a fact that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the said show-cause notice on 13.08.2025. In spite of the same, and merely stating that the explanation submitted by the Fair Price Shop dealer is not convincing the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension, which is admittedly without application of mind and without assigning any reasons as to how the 3rd respondent was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 5 VS,J W.P.No.25911 of 2025 5. In that regard, the Judgment in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , 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. 6. 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 to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 7. 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 4th respondent 1 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 6 VS,J W.P.No.25911 of 2025 has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 8. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed. The show-cause notices dated 17.07.2025, 06.08.2025 as well as suspension proceedings dated 23.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’ Fair Price Shop. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.09.2025 KGR