APHC010205092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10751/2025 Between: 1. SMT.MARELLA JAYAMMA, W/O RAMA SUBBANNA AGE- 51 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1334008, CHAPIREVULA VILLAGE NANDYAL MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NANDYAL RURAL MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR CS, NANDYAL RURAL MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/492/2025 dt7-4-2025 suspendin petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1334008, 2 VS,J W.P.No.10751 of 2025 Chapirevula Village, Nandyal Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt-7-4-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, 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 may be pleased Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3^^^ respondent vide Rc.No.CS/492/2025 dt:7-4-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1334008, Chapirevula Village, Nandyal Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual. pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.10751 of 2025 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No: 10751 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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/492/2025 dt7-4-2025 suspending petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1334008, Chapirevula Village, Nandyal Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt-7-4-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer and her authorization has been extended from time to time. Challenging the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/492/2025, suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of her Fair Price Shop without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure contemplated under the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Pursuant to the inspection conducted over the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 10.03.2025, certain variations were allegedly identified and based on the report submitted by the 4th respondent on 15.03.2025, the 3rd respondent 4 VS,J W.P.No.10751 of 2025 issued show cause notice on 18.03.2025 calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation within seven days as to why her authorization should not be cancelled for the above lapses. For which, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated Nil.03.2025. 4. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without assigning any reasons with respect to the explanation submitted and without proper application of mind, merely referred to Clause 8(4) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and directed the Tahsildar i.e., the 4th respondent to make alternative arrangement for the distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of the subject Fair Price Shop. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents. 6. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is evident that except referring to Clause 8(4) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, the orders do not specify whether the 3rd respondent intended to suspend the petitioner’s authorization or cancel the same. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has exclusive power under Clause 8(4) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, to either suspend or cancel the authorization, but the impugned proceedings do not specify as to whether the order is suspending the petitioner’s authorization or cancelling the same. 7. For ready reference, Clause 8(4) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 is extracted hereunder:- 5 VS,J W.P.No.10751 of 2025 “Under clause (4) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, The appointing authority may at any time in the public interest or on suomotu or on receipt of complaint after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause.” 8. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings dated 07.04.2025 cannot be sustained, as the 3rd respondent has neither assigned any valid reason nor followed the procedure contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. The order merely referred to Clause 8(4) without specifying whether the petitioner’s authorization was intended to be suspended or cancelled and without indicating why the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the 3rd respondent for passing fresh orders by duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and by recording clear reasons in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 07.04.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for passing of fresh orders duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner by assigning the reasons as to why he has not convinced with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law. As the 6 VS,J W.P.No.10751 of 2025 disciplinary proceedings has not been finalized either by placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension or cancel. 10. In view of the same, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop, pending finalization of the orders yet to be passed by the 3rd respondent. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :18.11.2025 JLV 7 VS,J W.P.No.10751 of 2025 215 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10751 of 2025 Date :18.11.2025 JLV