1 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 APHC010652892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 33686/2025 Between: 1. PARNAGONTA PARVATHAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATA SIVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PERMANENT F.P SHOP DEALER OF F.P SHOP NO.1243017, R/O. NEERUKUNTIA PALLI H/O. GODDUVELAGALA VILLAGE, GANDLAPENTA MANDAL, CURRENTLY SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, (OLD ANANTHAPUR). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADIRI DIVISION, KADIRI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GANDLAPENTA MANDAL, GANDLAPENTA, SRI SATYA SAI 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 2 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.F/603/2025, dated 26.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 suspending and cancelling my authorization, as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the objectives and provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, and contrary to the well-established legal principles, apart from being violative of my fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same, drop all further proceedings on the same allegations and direct continuation of my authorization for the subject shop 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 3rd Respondent to continue the Petitioner as the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Rc.No.F/603/2025, dated 26.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition: and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent No. 5 as party respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 33686 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.F/603/2025, dated 26.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 suspending and cancelling my authorization, as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the objectives and provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, and contrary to the well-established legal principles, apart from being violative of my fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same, drop all further proceedings on the same allegations and direct continuation of my authorization for the subject shop and pass” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1243017 situated at Gandlapenta mandal, Sri Satya Sai district in the year 1996 and ever since, the petitioner‟s authorization is being renewed from time to time and she has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, in October, 2025, the respondent authorities, allegedly visited the petitioner‟s fair price shop and left without preparing any inspection report or panchanama. Subsequently, on 25.10.2025, the 3rd respondent, basing on a report dated 10.10.2025 of the 4th 4 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 respondent, issued a show cause to the petitioner, directing her to submit explanation on or before 05.11.2025 as to why her dealership shall not be suspended or cancelled, by duly framing the following two charges: “CHARGE-1: That the F.P. shop dealer was not distributing the essential commodities properly and he took biometric from the villagers in epos machine but he was not distributing the essential commodities. Here the FP shop dealer was appointed on permanent basis and she is not distributing the essential commodities. Instead of her assistant named Mallareddy is distributing the essential commodities. He was the relative of the dealer. Which is in violation the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, and ANNEXURE TO G.O.Ms.NO:32, CA, F&CS (CS. I) DEPT., DT:03 12.2018 REVISED GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION AND APPONTMENT ETC OF FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALERS UNDER THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE TARGETED PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (CONTROL) ORDER, 2015, XII. Hence, it is further observed that she is violating the provisions of the A.P.S.T.D.S. (Control) Order. 2018, issued under G.O.Ms.No.32, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 03.12.2018. CHARGE-2: Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 ANDHRA PRADESH India rule ANDHRA PRADESH-STATE- PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION-SYSTEM-CONTROL-ORDER-2001 of 2001Published on 6 April 2002 Commenced on 6 April 2002. The authorization should be renewed, The authorization not renewed by the F.P.Shop dealer, which is in, violation of PUBLIC-DISTRIBUTION- SYSTEM-CONTROL-ORDER-2001 2001Published on 6 April2002 Commenced on 6 April 2002. the authorization shall cease to be valid and the entire security deposit made under sub-clause (2) of clause (3) shall be forfeited.” 5 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 4. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 04.11.2025 duly denying the allegations leveled against her and with a further request to drop all further proceedings and to continue her as fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop. The 3rd respondent, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner held that 1st charge framed against the petitioner is proved and that the 2nd charge is not proved. However, the 3rd respondent, having observed that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the 1st charge is not satisfactory, passed the following order on 26.11.2025: “In view of the above facts, the disciplinary authority has not satisfied on the explanation F.P.Shop dealer F.P.Shop Smt. P.Parvathamma, W/o Late P.Venkata Shiva Reddy F.P.Shop dealer, F.P.Shop No: 1243017 of Neerukuntiapalli Village H/o Godduvelagala village Gandiapenta Mandal. Hence the authorization of F.P.Shop dealer is here by cancelled, is hereby suspended authorization of the F.P Shop dealer of F.P Shop No 1243017 as per the provisions laid down under Clause 80(4) of the A.P.S.T.D.S (Control) Order, 2018 and as per provisions laid down under Clause 8 (ii) (c) of A.P.S.T.D.S(Control) Order 2018 read with provisions laid down at para No. XII (viii) of G.O.Ms.No.32. Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Dept dated 03.12 2016.” Aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 26.11.2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri. C. Sumon, learned counsel representing Sri. P. Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 6. During the course of arguments, Sri. C. Sumon, learned counsel reiterated the facts of the case as stated supra and further contended that pursuant to the direction issued by the 3rd respondent to make alternative arrangements for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders attached to the subject fair price shop, the 4th respondent, vide Rc.No.CS/390/2025, dated 27.11.2025, basing on an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar, Gandlapeta and based on the representation submitted by the unofficial respondent, recommended the unofficial respondent to be appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop. 7. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court another proceedings in Rc.No.390/C.S/2025, dated 27.11.2025 issued by the 4th respondent whereby, the 4th respondent directly appointed the unofficial respondent herein as a fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop on temporary basis, though he is not having any authority as the Revenue Divisional Officer alone is competent enough to appoint or suspend a fair price shop dealer. Thereafter, on 02.12.2025, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in R.C.No.664/F/2025, appointed the unofficial respondent herein as temporary fair price shop dealer which is contrary to sub-clause 5 of clause 8 of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short „Control Order, 2018‟). 7 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 8. Learned counsel further contends that though the unofficial respondent is allegedly the Secretary of Satyamma Talli Mahila Sangham of Neerukuntlapalli, hamlet of Godduvelagala village, Gandlapenta mandal, appointing the unofficial respondent in her individual capacity as fair price shop dealer to the subject fair price shop and without even conducting any enquiry as to the antecedents of other members of the self help group, is against the provisions of law. He further contended that though the 3rd respondent dropped the 2nd charge framed against the petitioner as not proved, he did not specify any reason for his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner insofar as the 1st charge is concerned. Without there being any specific averment as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner is dissatisfactory, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned proceedings with an ambiguity as to whether the petitioner‟s authorization is suspended or cancelled. Further, relying on a common order and judgment dated 19.11.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24493 of 2025 and batch, wherein this Court reiterated the procedure to be followed by the appointing authority for suspension or cancellation of fair price shop dealership, learned counsel requested this Court to set-aside the impugned proceedings dated 26.11.2025. 9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent and further submitted that 8 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 the said order is passed against the petitioner as she has willfully disobeyed the procedure laid down in the Control Order, 2018. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Admittedly, based on an inspection alleged to be conducted by the respondent officials and basing on a report of the 4th respondent which was not supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 25.10.2025 by the 3rd respondent duly framing two charges. It is alleged that the petitioner, in spite of collecting biometrics of cardholders, was not distributing essential commodities to them and that instead of the petitioner, her assistant, one Mallareddy – relative to the petitioner, was distributing the commodities which is in violation of the Control Order, 2018. The second charge framed against the petitioner is that the petitioner has failed to renew her authorization from time to time. 11. Undisputedly, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 04.11.2025 denying the 1st charge framed against her and with regard to the 2nd charge, the petitioner stated that her authorization was renewed on 04.03.2024 after paying the renewal fee. Considering the said explanation, the 3rd respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 26.11.2025 dropped the 2nd charge framed against her. It can also be seen that the 3rd respondent, being dissatisfied over the explanation submitted by the petitioner with respect to the 1st charge, 9 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 passed the impugned proceedings dated 26.11.2025 directing the 4th respondent to make alternative arrangements through Self Help Group. 12. Pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Gandlapenta conducted a detailed enquiry with respect to the 5th respondent and recommended her to be appointed as a fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop. It is to be noted that the upon receipt of a report from the Deputy Tahsildar, the 4th respondent himself issued proceedings in R.C.No.390/C.S/2025, dated 27.11.2025 appointing the 5th respondent herein as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis, though he is not the appointing authority, however, having identified the mistake committed by him, the 4th respondent addressed a letter on the same day i.e. 27.11.2025 to the 3rd respondent recommending the appointment of 5th respondent as fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent, vide R.C.No.664/F/2025, dated 02.12.2025 appointed the 5th respondent who is the Secretary of „Satyamma Talli Mahila Sangham‟ of Neerukuntlapalli, H/o Godduvelagala village, Gandlapenta mandal as a fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop. 13. At this juncture, it is to be noted that if a post of fair price shop dealer fell vacant due to one reason or the other, the appointing authority, as per sub-clause 5 of clause 8 of the Control Order, 2018 shall make immediate alternate arrangement for distribution of scheduled commodities either through 10 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 Grama Sachivalayam or Ward Sachivalayam or any suitable Self Help Group within the area of the fair price shop to run the fair price shop up to a period of three months or till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis. For better appreciation, sub-clause 5 of clause 8 of the Control Order, 2018 is extracted hereunder: “(5)The appointing/ disciplinary authority shall make alternate arrangement for distribution of commodities to the cardholders through portability facility online keeping the convenience of the card holders with wide publicity among the cardholders to know the facility to get ration at any nearby shop. If any fair price shop falls vacant either temporarily or permanently for any reason, the appointing authority shall make immediate alternate arrangement for distribution of scheduled commodities through either Grama Sachivalayam or Ward Sachivalayam or any suitable Self Help Group within the area of the fair price shop to run the fair price shop up to a period of three months or till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis, whichever is earlier, as per rules” 14. Though the 5th respondent is claiming to be the Secretary of „Satyamma Talli Mahila Sangham‟, it appears that the 3rd respondent has appointed the 5th respondent in her individual capacity but has not appointed the Self Help Group. The said action of the 3rd respondent is against the provision laid down in the Control Order, 2018. 11 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 15. Now, a perusal of the impugned proceedings would create ambiguity as to whether the petitioner‟s authorization was suspended or cancelled. Even otherwise, the 3rd respondent has simply stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, but, reasons for his dissatisfaction were nowhere mentioned, which is against the principle of law laid down in K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others1, wherein it is 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 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.” 16. 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 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 12 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 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. 17. 17. 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. It can also be seen that though this Court has reiterated the procedure prescribed in the Control Order, 2018 to be followed by the authorities from the date of inspection till the date of cancellation of authorization of the fair price shop dealer and as well as the law laid down in various judgments regarding the procedure to be adopted by the authorities before initiating disciplinary proceedings in the common order dated 19.11.2025 in W.P.No.24494 of 2025 and batch, admittedly, the 3rd respondent has failed to follow the prescribed procedure while passing the impugned proceedings dated 26.11.2025. 13 VS,J WP.No.33686 of 2025 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 26.11.2025 and the show cause notice dated 25.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent are hereby set-aside. However, it is open to the respondents to initiate further course of action as against the petitioner, if at all they intend to do so, by following the procedure reiterated by this Court in the common order dated 19.11.2025 in W.P.No.24493 of 2025 and batch. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:09.12.2025 Gss