APHC010503452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26195/2025 Between: 1. MITTA SARADA, W/O. VENKATA MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PERMANENT FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER. FAIR PRICE SHOP NO. 1134016, R/O DOOR NO. TALLAPALLI VILLAGE, VEMPALLI MANDAL, Y.S. R. KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PULIVENDULA DIVISION, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VEMPALLI MANDAL, Y.S. R. KADAPA DISTRICT. ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No. 1134016 situated at TallapalliVillage, Vempalli Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District., Andhra Pradesh vide Ref. No. D/880/2024 dated. 22.07.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 VS,J W.P.No.26195 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 suspend the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Ref. No. D/880/2024, dated 22.07.2025. by continuing the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer in respect fair price shop No. 1134016 situated at Tallapalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.26195 of 2025 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.26195 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No.1134016 situated at Tallapalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh vide Ref.No.D/880/2024 dated 22.07.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.1134016, situated in Tallapalli Village, Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The petitioner has been running the Fair Price Shop in accordance with all the rules and regulations prescribed by the Government. 3. While the matter being so, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Pulivendula along with the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Vempalli and Village Revenue Officer, inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 02.11.2024 and found certain irregularities along with huge variations in the stocks of Fortified rice (+107.27Kgs), Jowar (+29.69 Kgs), RG Dal (+16Kgs) and Sugar (+14Kgs/pkts) and thereafter submitted a report to the Tahsildar, who in turn submitted a report to the 2nd respondent herein on 06.11.2024. 4. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 14.07.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within a 4 VS,J W.P.No.26195 of 2025 period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said show cause notice. In pursuance of which, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 19.07.2025 and requested the 2nd respondent to drop the charges as against her. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and merely stating that the same is not convincing has suspended the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 22.07.2025 pending enquiry and further directed the 3rd respondent to make alternative arrangements to maintain continuity in supply of essential commodities to the cardholders and also that the 2nd respondent issued the show cause notice dated 14.07.2025 to the petitioner based upon a report submitted by the 3rd respondent for initiating proceedings under Section 6-A of the EC Act, without there being any second report for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 6. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 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 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 5 VS,J W.P.No.26195 of 2025 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 22.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in Ref No.D/880/2024 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. 6 VS,J W.P.No.26195 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :07.10.2025 JLV 7 VS,J W.P.No.26195 of 2025 179 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26195/2025 Date :07.10.2025 JLV