APHC010582042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30441/2025 Between: 1. B NARASIMHULU, S/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA AGE-52 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1339036, CHINTALACHERUVU VILLAGE CHAGALAMARRI MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE 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, CHAGALAMARRI 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 topleased 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/1825/2025 dt-18-10-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 1339036, Chintalacheruvu Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) 2 VS,J W.P.No.30441 of 2025 Order, 2018 is iilegai, arbitrary maiafide 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- 18-10-2025 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 pleased Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1825/2025 dt- 18-10-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1339036 Chintalacheruvu Village, Chagalamarri 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.30441 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/1825/2025 dt-18-10- 2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 1339036, Chintalacheruvu Village, Chagalamarri 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 maiafide 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- 18-10-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1339036, Chintalacheruvu Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 2008. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been running the Fair Price Shop without any complaint from anybody whatsoever. His authorization is valid up to 31.03.2027. b) While things stood thus, on 16.09.2025 at about 11.00 a.m., the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Allagadda along with the Village Revenue Officer, Chintalacheruvu inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and verified the stock position with reference to the book balance and the ground stock. 4 VS,J W.P.No.30441 of 2025 After thorough inspection, the authorities did not find any variation and were satisfied that the petitioner was distributing ration to the cardholders in accordance with the control orders. However, the officials obtained the petitioner’s signature on a blank white paper, saying that the signature was required to acknowledge the inspection. After completion of the inspection, the authorities left the shop without preparing any panchanama or seizing the stock. c) Despite there being no variation, the 4th respondent submitted a report dated 20.09.2025 to the 3rd respondent alleging an excess of 306 kgs of fortified rice and claiming that the petitioner was not properly distributing ration to senior citizens. Basing on the said report, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice on 21.09.2025, framing four charges against the petitioner. d) The petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.10.2025, stating that the inspection team had obtained his signature on a blank white paper and requested that a proper enquiry be conducted regarding the alleged variation. The petitioner also enclosed photographs substantiating that he had been distributed ration to old-aged persons at their door steps, along with detailed particulars of such distribution. e) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by him and without assigning cogent reasons, straightaway suspended his authorization in a mechanical manner 5 VS,J W.P.No.30441 of 2025 vide impugned proceedings dated 18.10.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that the 3rd respondent framed the following four charges against the petitioner: Charge No.1: The inspection team identified that the F.P. shop dealer has not opening the FP shop properly during the distribution days the F.P. sop dealer violated Provisions of clause 10 under APTPDS Control Order, 2018. Charge No.2: The inspection team observed the F.P. shop dealer has non-issue of receipt after the completion of Bio- metric of the card holders and violated clause 12(g) of APTPDS Control Order, 2018. Charge No.3: The inspection team identified that the F.P. shop dealer has less quantity Rice distributed to the card holders and violated clause 17(b) and 22(IV) of APTPDS Control Order, 2008. Charge No.4: The Inspection team found that the F.P. Shop dealer has the extra amount of Rs.3/- of selling Sugar to the cardholders fixed by the Government and violated clause 29(a) of APTPDS Control Order, 2018. 5. With regard to above charges, it appears that no independent enquiry was conducted, despite the petitioner submitting a detailed explanation supported by photographs to substantiate that he distributed essential 6 VS,J W.P.No.30441 of 2025 commodities to senior citizens at their doorsteps. The impugned order does not disclose any consideration of the explanation or the supporting material submitted by the petitioner. 6. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside, as they have been passed without assigning any cogent reasons and without due application of mind. The 3rd respondent merely stated that the explanation offered by the dealer was found unsatisfactory and that he was not convinced with the same, but failed to assign any reasons as to in what way he was not satisfied or convinced with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 7. In that regard, in K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others1, it was observed as under: “11. 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 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 7 VS,J W.P.No.30441 of 2025 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.” 8. Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, under similar circumstances has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 9. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 2 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 8 VS,J W.P.No.30441 of 2025 10. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1339036, Chintalacheruvu Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District, until he is found at fault in any other instance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 04.11.2025. KGR