APHC010564602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34216/2025 Between: 1. MALLAMMA, W/O. LATE UGRAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP. NO. 1259041 R/O. GURRAPUKONDA VILLAGE, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY.. ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.34216 of 2025 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No. 1709/2025/C dated 19.09.2025 by terminating the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No. 1259041, Gurrapukonda Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, intentionally and mechanically and not issuing the Panchanama to the petitioner 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 Targeted 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. 1259041, Gurrapukonda Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District and pass 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 F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's F.P Shop No.1259041, Gurrapukonda Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings of 4th respondent vide Rc.No.1709/2025/C dated 19.09.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASHAPOGU SURESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.34216 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No. 1709/2025/C dated 19.09.2025 by terminating the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No. 1259041, Gurrapukonda Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, intentionally and mechanically and not issuing the Panchanama to the petitioner 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 Targeted 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. 1259041, Gurrapukonda Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District and pass….” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1259041 of Madakasira mandal, Sri Satya Sai district in the year 2015 on temporary basis and ever since, she has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 15.05.2025, the 5th respondent along with his staff inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop; as they found a variation of (-)489 kilograms of fortified rice and (-) 78 kilograms of ragi 4 VS,J W.P.No.34216 of 2025 powder, the entire stock was seized by way of a panchanama, which allegedly was not served on the petitioner. Subsequently, based on a report submitted by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.05.2025, in response, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 03.06.2025 denying the allegations leveled against her. As the 4th respondent terminated the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 20.06.2025, without considering her explanation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18289 of 2025, which was allowed on 28.07.2025 by directing the 4th respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner by intimating the date of enquiry and to pass appropriate orders in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the 4th respondent issued a fresh show cause notice dated 06.08.2025 to the petitioner seeking her explanation for the two charges framed, accordingly, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 13.08.2025. Considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 19.09.2025 terminated the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. Heard Sri. Kashapogu Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 VS,J W.P.No.34216 of 2025 6. Perused the entire material available on record. Pursuant to the inspection conducted by the officials on 15.05.2025, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 29.05.2025 framing two charges, to which, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 03.06.2025 denying the charges framed against her. A perusal of the explanation dated 03.06.2025 would go to show that the petitioner admitted that her fair price shop was inspected by the officials on 15.05.2025. Expressing dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent terminated the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 20.06.2025, which, admittedly were set- aside by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 in W.P.No.18289 of 2025 preferred by the petitioner herein on the ground that the respondents have failed to conduct an enquiry. Further, the 4th respondent was directed to issue fresh notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, a fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.08.2025 seeking her explanation for two charges framed against her, pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 13.08.2025, wherein, it was contended that no inspection was conducted by the inspection officials on 15.05.2025, but, as observed hereinabove, in her earlier explanation dated 03.06.2025, the petitioner herself admitted that the inspecting officials inspected her fair price shop on 15.05.2025. Having 6 VS,J W.P.No.34216 of 2025 admitted the fact that her fair price shop was inspected by the officials in her explanation submitted earlier, the petitioner came up with a new version in her explanation dated 13.08.2025 that her fair price shop was not inspected by the inspecting officials, which in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be accepted as the same is misrepresentation of facts. As such, this Court finds no wrong on the part of the respondent authorities in passing the impugned proceedings dated 19.09.2025. 8. In view of the same this writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent, if she is so advised and on such filing, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same without raising any objection as to the limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 22.12.2025 Gss