APHC010049402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2694/2025 Between: Devireddy Maha Lakshmi ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mulla Sohail Shareef Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 10.01.2025, suspending the petitioner's authorization of Fair Price Shop No.0813040 pending enquiry into the allegations, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Mulla Sohail Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that she was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer in the year 2000, and since then, she has been continued as a dealer without any complaints. However, on 16.12.2024, respondent Nos.5 and 6 visited the petitioner's shop and found a variation in stock to an extent of 150 kg. Consequently, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings on 10.01.2025, suspending the petitioner's authorisation. 4. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 11.01.2025, was issued, directing the petitioner to submit her explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order, and an opportunity for a personal hearing was also granted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after passing the interim suspension order, show cause notice was issued for cancellation of the license, and he argues that the show cause notice should have preceded the order of interim suspension. Since the procedure was not followed, learned counsel contends that the impugned proceedings should be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.27368 of 2024. 6. In contrast, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that, pursuant to the notice issued on 11.01.2025, the petitioner submitted his explanation, and the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, also heard the matter and reserved for orders. He further contended that, to prevent further irregularities by the petitioner, the interim suspension order was passed as an interim measure, suspending the authorization of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Tumu Varalakshmamma (W.P.No.27368 of 2024), wherein the judgment of this Court in the case C.Durga Srinivas Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1 was followed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader distinguishes the said judgement, pointing out that the control order invoked in the present case varies with the provisions of the 2008 control order, which fell for consideration in the case(s) relied upon by the learned counsel. 8. Considered the rival submissions, it is noted that the impugned order suspended the authorization of the petitioner as an interim measure, pending enquiry, in order to prevent the dealer from further indulgence in malpractices of distribution of essential commodities under ‘Targeted Public Distribution System’. 9. A perusal of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, reads as follows: (4) The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo motu 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. [Provided that the Appointing Authority may, order interim suspension of the authorization in writing pending enquiry in sub clause 4 of clause 8] 1 2015 SCC Online Hyd 680 10. A perusal of the show-cause notice dated 11.01.2025, reflects that it does not indicate any action as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. The notice had only required the petitioner to explain the variation in stock. 11. In these circumstances, it appears that the concerned officer did not contemplate any action either for suspension or cancellation of the license on account of the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner. Consequently, the order of interim suspension is invalid, since an interim suspension of authorization can only be passed when an inquiry is contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. 12. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in case of any irregularities that may have been committed by him. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 05.02.2025 BSK 32 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2694/2025 Date: 05.02.2025 BSK