IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUAi TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2537 OF 2025 Between: Jamparapu Guravaiah, S/o. JamparapuJayaraju @ Guravaiah, Aged 34 years, R/o. D.No.2-143, Chinnagurvalur Village, Chapad Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Revenue Division, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. 5. The Tahsilidar, Chapad Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue of the 3rd respondent in may an appropriate writ of mandamus declaring the action issuing the impugned proceedings vide Ref.B/3051/2021, dt.31.12.2024 suspending the petitioner from the service of fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 1114016 at Chinnaguruvaluru Village, Chapad Mandal, Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of law and in violation of the articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of the India and consequently to set aside the by directing the respondent to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 1114016 at Chinnaguruvaluru Village, Chapad Mandal, Kadapa District. same lA 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 to direct the respondents to suspend the operation of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Ref.B/3051/2021 , dt.31.12.2024while directing the respondents to supply the commodities to the petitioner so as to enable him to distribute the the card holders of Shop No.1114016 at Chinnaguruvaluru Village, Chapad Mandal, Kadapa District,pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: essential same to APHC010046132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2537/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Jamparapu Guravaiah AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3"^ respondent in issuing the impugned Ref.B/3051/2021 (sic 2024), dt.31.12.2024 proceedings vide suspending the petitioner from the service of fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 1114016 at Chinnaguruvaluru Village, Chapad Mandal, Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of law and in violation of the articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of the India and consequently to set aside the same by 2 WP No.2537of 2025 directing the respondent to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 1114016 at Chinnaguruvaluru Village, Chapad Mandal, Kadapa District. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: 2. The petitioner was qualified in the written examination and got appointed as a dealer of fair price shop No.1114016, Chinnaguruvaluru Village, Chapad Mandal, Kadapa District. The respondent authorities issued the show cause notice vide Ref No.B/3051/2024 dated 23.12.2024 for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation duly stating the entire factual aspect, but the respondent authorities did not consider the same. The 4‘^ respondent issued the present impugned proceedings vide Ref No.B/3051/2024 dated 31.12.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioner and directing the respondent to make alternative arrangement to maintain continuity in supply of essential commodities to the card holders of the petitioner’s shop. Hence, this writ petition is filed having no other alternative. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the variation of stock in the fortified rice is well within the permissible limit and the variation in the other items is very negligible and did not call for suspension of authorization, yet the impugned order had been passed. He further submitted that the period of suspension had not been noted and therefore it cannot be allowed for an indefinite period and such order is impermissible. an 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in K.Prabhavathi Vs State of A.P.\ wherein at paragraph No.9 it was held as follows: ^ 2020(6) ALD 209 WP No.2537 of 2025 3 “9. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi-judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” The leaned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu dated 01.02.2025. verification of physical stocks with reference to the ePoS stock report the variation of the stock is as detailed below: 5. He contended that on Physical stock (Kgs) Variation (Kgs) Stocks distributed (Kgs) C.B.as Receipts for November, 2024 Kgs Total Name of O.B. S.N (Kgs) the (Kgs) per EPOS (Kgs) commodity (-)78 Kgs 1628 1550 6534 8162 667 7495 Fortified 1 Rice 13 (+)6 7 444 430 451 Sugar 21 2 packets (+)18 0 18 181 181 41 140 3 Redgram kgs Dal (-) 18 100 118 199 81 0 199 4 Jower Kgs WP No.2537of 2025 6. On a perusal of the impugned order and the details variation as noted above, it is clear that the order is devoid of any reasons as to the necessity of passing the order of suspension pending enquiry. Moreover, the order was passed for indefinite period, apart, the facts in this case do not call for authorization pending enquiry. It is open for the authorities to conduct enquiry and pass final order, but the impugned order is not sustainable. 7. As per the decision of this Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad others^ it is held at para 27 as follows; “27. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. of the That any suspension of & with the (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear ^ 2015 see Online Hyd 680 WP No.2537 of 2025 5 ■ terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation: (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. 6 WP No.2537of 2025 • (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.” As such, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The authorities are at liberty to pass final order by conducting enquiry as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. 8. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Revenue Division Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. 5. The Tahsilidar, Chapad Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 6. One CC to Sri. Sravan Kumar Naidana Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP For Civil Supplies, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2537 of 2025 5 0 5 MAH 2075 ft . Current Secuon . ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS