APHC010050302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2554/2025 Between: Smt. M. Venkata Praveena ...PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) 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 Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…pleased 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.01/2023, dt: 25-1-2025 suspending petitioner’s authorization in respect of the FP Shop No.1313022, Abdulla Puram Village, Velugodu Mandal, Nandyal Dist., on the ground of variation of 149 kgs rice excess without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) 2 W.P. No.2554 of 2025 Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide 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:25-1-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual…” 02. The petitioner was appointed as permanent dealer of the fair price shop No.1313022, Abdulla Puram Village, Velugodu Mandal, Nandyal District by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc. B 492/2004, dated 18.10.2004. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to political influence, the officials had foisted a false case and suspended the authorization of the petitioner though the variation is very minimal, negligible and very close to the permissible limit. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 4th respondent herein and opposed the petition since there was variation in the stock. 05. Perused the record. 06. The alleged variation of the stock is shown as below: 07. It is apt to refer the decision of this High Court in K.Prabhavathi Vs State of A.P. and others1, wherein it was held at paragraph No.9 as follows: 1 2020(6) ALD 209 Sl. No. Name of Commodity Stock at the start Kgs Stock received Kgs Total Stock Kgs Sales Kgs Stock as per E- PoS Kgs Physical stock Kgs Difference Kgs 1 PDS Rice (Fortified) 69 6733 6802 6681 121 270 (+) 149 2 Jowar 53 200 253 253 - - - 3 Red gram 15 398 413 413 - - - 4 Sugar 10 (1/2 Packets) 500 (1/2 Packets) 510 (1/2 Packets) 489 (1/2 Packets) 12 (1/2 Packets) 14 (1/2 Packets) (+)2 (1/2 Packets) 3 W.P. No.2554 of 2025 “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.” 08. The above contents indicate that the variation is not so high and taking a harsh remedy of suspending the authorization of the petitioner, pending enquiry. Moreover, no reasons were assigned to indicate the need for suspending. Therefore, it is a fit case to suspend the impugned order issued vide Rc.No.CS.01/2023, dated: 25.01.2025. This order does not preclude the authorities from conducting the enquiry as per law. 09. As such, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order Rc.No.CS.01/2023, dated: 25.01.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 19.02.2025 SCH 4 W.P. No.2554 of 2025 483 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2554/2025 Date: 19.02.2025 SCH