APHC010684852025 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: 35338/2025 Between: 1. M VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O, M. NALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. H.NO. 3-125, PYALAKURTHY VILLAGE, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL-518002 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518002 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT- 518464 ...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 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.DT(LR) 809/2025, dated 28.11.2025, in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District, as 2 VS,J W.P.No.35338 of 2025 illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent 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 fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District by suspending the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.DT(LR) 809/2025, dated 28.11.2025, 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.35338 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.DT(LR) 809/2025, dated 28.11.2025, in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319037 of Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District, 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 herein was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1319037 of Pyalakurthy village, Kodumur mandal, Kurnool district in the year 2010 and ever since, he has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned and his authorization has been renewed from time to time. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 04.07.2025, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and other officials, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and allegedly found variation of (-)140 kilograms of PDS rice; accordingly, a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered against the petitioner and the 3rd respondent has issued a show cause notice on 10.07.2025 to the petitioner seeking his explanation to the single charge framed against him. Pursuant to the notice dated 10.07.2025, the petitioner 4 VS,J W.P.No.35338 of 2025 submitted his explanation on 17.07.2025 denying the allegation leveled against him. However, as the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by the 3rd respondent pending enquiry vide proceedings dated 24.07.2025, without considering his explanation dated 17.07.2025, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.20192 of 2025 which was allowed by this Court on 05.08.2025 by setting aside the proceedings dated 24.07.2025 and with a further direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afresh. 4. Thereafter, on 30.08.2025, without considering the version putforth by the petitioner during personal hearing conducted on 26.08.2025, the 3rd respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner relying on the report submitted by the 4th respondent. The said cancellation order dated 30.08.2025 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.24567 of 2025 and this Court was pleased to set-aside the order dated 30.08.2025 with a further direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter. 5. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was issued a fresh show cause notice on 23.10.2025 framing the same single charge as was framed in the earlier show cause notice dated 10.07.2025. The petitioner requested the respondent authorities to consider his earlier explanation dated 17.07.2025 submitted pursuant to the notice dated 10.07.2025, to the fresh show cause notice dated 23.10.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is that, instead of passing orders based on the explanation already submitted to the charge 5 VS,J W.P.No.35338 of 2025 framed against him, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 28.11.2025 by relying on the statements of the cardholders who were enquired behind the back of the petitioner, which is not a part of the charge framed in the show cause notice dated 23.10.2025. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 6. Heard Sri. K. Naga Phanindra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. The inspecting officials, on 04.07.2025, conducted an inspection to the petitioner’s fair price shop and have found variation of (-) 140 kilograms of PDS rice and accordingly, a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was registered against the petitioner and the entire stock was seized by the officials. On 10.07.2025, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice, calling for explanation from the petitioner, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of the said notice by framing the following charge: “Charge-I:The inspection team noticed PDS Rice 140 Kgs less in the ground balance of the FP Shop No.1319037. Therefore the variation of stock found in the ground balance, it is clearly established the facts that the dealer has indulged in the malpractices in the distribution of ECs to the cardholders under public distribution system, there by violated clause 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.” 6 VS,J W.P.No.35338 of 2025 8. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.07.2025 to the 3rd respondent, stating that he had distributed rice to the card holders and during distribution their fingerprints were not registered in the e-PoS machine and that the said variation occurred solely due to error in the e-PoS machine. Thereafter, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 24.07.2025 based on the report submitted by the 4th respondent under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, challenging which, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.20192 of 2025, which was allowed by this Court by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2025 and the matter was remanded back to the 3rd respondent, for fresh consideration. 9. However, it appears that thereafter, the 3rd respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 30.08.2025 relying on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, which were also set-aside by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 in W.P.No.24567 of 2025 with a further direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was issued a fresh show cause notice on 23.10.2025 framing the same single charge as mentioned supra and the petitioner requested the respondent authorities to consider his earlier explanation dated 17.07.2025. 7 VS,J W.P.No.35338 of 2025 10. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated to 01.11.2025 to the 4th respondent, inspecting officials and the concerned cardholders of Pyalakurthy village to attend enquiry, pursuant to which, an enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent and recorded the statements of the cardholders who stated that the petitioner does not distribute essential commodities properly and that he supplies them lesser quantities. Few other cardholders happen to have stated that they received PDS rice without giving biometric authentication due to server error in the month of July, 2025. Thereafter, on 20.11.2025, the 4th respondent was issued another notice to attend enquiry on 27.11.2025, wherein, the 4th respondent confirmed that the cardholders have drawn essential commodities without giving biometric authentication in the month of July, 2025 and few other cardholders stated that the petitioner does not distribute commodities properly. 11. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2025 would go to show that though few cardholders have confirmed that they have drawn essential commodities in the month of July, 2025 without giving biometric authentication due to server error and when the same reason was expressed by the petitioner in his explanation dated 17.07.2025, the 3rd respondent, without application of mind, basing on the statement of few other cardholders that the petitioner does not distribute essential commodities properly, which admittedly is not a part of the charge framed against the petitioner in the show 8 VS,J W.P.No.35338 of 2025 cause notice dated 23.10.2025, has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has committed irregularities in maintaining the subject fair price shop and in distributing essential commodities to the cardholders. When the allegation that the petitioner is not distributing essential commodities properly and is issuing lesser quantities to the cardholders is not a part of the charge framed against the petitioner in the show cause notice, suspending the authorization of the petitioner basing on such allegation is beyond the scope of the show cause notice and is in violation of principles of natural justice. When few cardholders admitted that they received commodities without giving biometric authentication in the month of July, 2025, the 3rd respondent ought to have considered the same and should have passed orders accordingly, but, should not have suspended the authorization of the petitioner by going beyond the scope of the show cause notice issued. As such, the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2025 are liable to be set-aside. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned suspension proceedings dated 28.11.2025 are hereby set-aside. Further, the respondent authorities are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1319037 of Pyalakurthy village, Kodumur mandal, Kurnool district, until and unless the petitioner is found default of his duties, in any other instance. No costs. 9 VS,J W.P.No.35338 of 2025 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 22.12.2025 Gss