APHC010337802021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. PUSULURI KOTESWARA RAO,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ANPIT 42 YEARS, OCC. VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR C S, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 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 topleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 respondent in suspending the dealership authorisation of the petitioner through his proceedings in Re. No. 207/2020, show cause notice of even date issued by him in respect Shop No. 0735013 of Yamarru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District, basing on the 6-A report issued by the 3 respondent herein as highly illegal, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 20557/2021 PUSULURI KOTESWARA RAO,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ANPIT 42 YEARS, OCC. - FP SHOP DEALER, R/O. YAMARNT VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE JOINT COLLECTOR C S, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR ...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 topleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in f Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 respondent in suspending the dealership authorisation of the petitioner through his proceedings in Re. No. 207/2020,-SB, dated 15-05-2020 in pursuance of the show cause notice of even date issued by him in respect of the Fair Price Shop No. 0735013 of Yamarru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District, A report issued by the 3 respondent herein as highly illegal, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA PUSULURI KOTESWARA RAO,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED FP SHOP DEALER, R/O. YAMARNT VILLAGE, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THE TAHSILDAR, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR ...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 topleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in f Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 respondent in suspending the dealership authorisation of the petitioner through his 2020 in pursuance of the of the Fair Price Shop No. 0735013 of Yamarru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District, A report issued by the 3 respondent herein as highly illegal, 2 VS,J W.P.No.20557 of 2021 arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(i)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 2 respondent herein in R.C. No. 207/2020-SB, dated 15-05-2020 suspending the dealership authorisation of the petitioner herein in respect of Fair Price Shop No. 0735013 of Yamarru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent herein in R.C. No. 207/2020-SB, dated 15-05-2020 and thereby direct the respondents herein to restore supply of essential commodities to the petitioner in respect of his Fair Price Shop No. 0735013 of Yamarru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 vacate the interim order dated 23-09-2021 passed in W.P.20557 of 2021 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J W.P.No.20557 of 2021 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the dealership authorisation of the petitioner through his proceedings in Rc.No.207/2020-SB, dated 15.05.2020 in pursuance of the show cause notice of even date issued by him in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.0735013 of Yamarru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District, basing on the 6-A report issued by the 3rd respondent herein as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein in R.C.No.207/2020-SB, dated 15.05.2020 suspending the dealership authorisation of the petitioner herein in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0735013 of Yamarru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0735013 of Yamarru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time and the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders to the entire satisfaction of the respondents over the past 35 years. 3. While the matter being so, the authorities under the control of the respondents have surprisingly visited the petitioner’s fair price and seized the stock of 47.08 quintals of rice and 2.61 quintals of R.G.Dal on the premise that there is variation between the ground stock and the stock as per the statement drawn from the e-PoS machine and handed over the seized stock to the dealer of fair price shop No.0735030 in Pallapadu Village. Thereafter, the 3rd 4 VS,J W.P.No.20557 of 2021 respondent has submitted a report to the 2nd respondent through his letter dated 06.05.2020 for initiating proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities, 1955, and basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice vide R.C.reference.No.207/2020-SB, dated 15.05.2020, calling for explanation from the petitioner within seven days and on the same day, the 2nd respondent also suspended the petitioner’s authorization, even without waiting for a period of seven days. Challenging which, the present writ petition was filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 23.09.2021, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim direction: “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities with due authorisation for more than 35 years without any complaint. While things stood thus, the respondents have conducted a surprise check on 1.5.2020 on the petitioner’s fair price shop and the 3rd respondent submitted a report. Based on the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent Joint Collector issued a show cause notice seeking petitioner’s explanation for cancellation of authorisation and simultaneously passed suspension order. He further states that suspension order was passed based on 6-A report. The 3rd respondent has not submitted any separate report to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner as required under the provisions of clause 20 (i) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2018 and the variations are also minor in nature and as such, the suspension is unwarranted. The impugned order of suspension is illegal and arbitrary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions of the learned counsel and on a perusal of the impugned order, this Court has come to the conclusion that there is no separate report submitted by the Tahsildar to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The impugned order refers only the 5 VS,J W.P.No.20557 of 2021 report submitted to initiate the action under the provisions of 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on instructions would submit that separate report as required under the provisions of clause 20 (i) of the Control Order, 2018 is submitted to the 2nd respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. But in the impugned order at unnumbered paragraph it is stated that “accordingly, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Guntur has filed a report under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the Joint Collector, Guntur and requested to confiscate the entire seized stocks to the Government and also recommended in the referenced cited for initiation of disciplinary action against the F.P.Shop dealer for the irregularities committed by him.” A reading of the above paragraph reveals that the 3rd respondent has not submitted separate report for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner and the alleged variations are minor in nature and as such, the suspension of the petitioner’s authorisation does not warrant. The petitioner has shown sufficient cause for granting of interim direction. Accordingly, there shall be an interim direction as prayed for.” 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court on 23.09.2021, the petitioner’s authorization was restored and the petitioner has been running the fair price shop. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the 6 VS,J W.P.No.20557 of 2021 common order, dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. The relevant portion of the said order, reads as under: 9. …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. 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. 8. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also allowed, in terms of the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and the impugned proceedings dated 7 VS,J W.P.No.20557 of 2021 15.05.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.207/2020-SB are set- aside. 9. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 to this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 24.09.2025 MDP