APHC010532732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27616/2025 Between: 1. DAMULURI THIRUPATHAIAH, S/O. GOPAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0707040, R/O D.NO. 3-118, KONURU VILLAGE, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SATTENAPALLI DIVISION, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, , IN-CHARGE, ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.NO.27616 OF 2025 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 a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order in RC.No.3114/2025-C Dated 25.09.2025 in consonence with the show-cause notice dated 25.09.2025 by suspending the the authorization of the petitioner F.P Shop in Shop No. 0707040 of Konuru Village, Atchampet mandal, Palnadu District, basing on the report of the 4th respondent dated 06.09.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice consequentially direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as the Permanent Dealer of FP Shop No.0707040, of Konuru Village, Atchampet mandal, Palnadu District, by suspending the operation of the impugned order in RC.No.3114/2025-C Dated 25.09.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to 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 Respondents to continue the petitioner as the Permanent Dealer of FP Shop No.0707040, of Konuru Village, Atchampet mandal, Palnadu District, by suspending the operation of the impugned order in RC.No.3114/2025-C Dated: 25.09.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J W.P.NO.27616 OF 2025 The Court made the following ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order in RC.No.3114/2025-C Dated 25.09.2025 in consonence with the show-cause notice dated 25.09.2025 by suspending the authorization of the petitioner F.P Shop in Shop No. 0707040 of Konuru Village, Atchampet mandal, Palnadu District, basing on the report of the 4th respondent dated 06.09.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice consequentially direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as the Permanent Dealer of FP Shop No.0707040 of Konuru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palnadu District, by suspending the operation of the impugned order in RC.No.3114/2025-C Dated 25.09.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent....” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. The petitioner is authorized as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.0707040 situated at Konuru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palnadu District. He has been running the fair price shop for the past 18 years without any remarks. 4. While the matter being so, on 06.09.2025, the petitioner’s fair price shop was inspected by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar(I/C), Atchampet along with Vigilance Officers, in the 4 VS,J W.P.NO.27616 OF 2025 presence of Village Revenue Officer, Konuru Village and mediators. During the course of said inspection, the petitioner was present in the shop and produced the e-pos device before the inspecting authority for verification. Further on verification of ground stock available in the shop against the stock report generated by the e-pos device, the respondents have found a variation of (+) 192 kgs of excess fortified rice and thereafter, a report was submitted by the Tahsildar on 06.09.2025. 5. Basing on the said report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, by way of show cause notice vide proceedings No.RC.No.3114/2025-C dated 25.09.2025, calling for an explanation within a period of seven (07) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice as to why the petitioner’s authorization should not be suspended. However, the grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that the Revenue Divisional Officer/2nd respondent, even without waiting for a period of seven days mentioned in the show cause notice have straight away suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop on the very same day i.e., on 25.09.2025, which is admittedly in violation of principles of natural justice. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.27616 OF 2025 6. In the instant case, since the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended by the 2nd respondent without considering the explanation given by the petitioner as well as without any reasons, which is against the principles of natural justice. 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 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.” 7. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 6 VS,J W.P.NO.27616 OF 2025 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. 8. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice dated 25.09.2025, 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. 7 VS,J W.P.NO.27616 OF 2025 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings No. Ref. RC.No.3114/2025-C Dated 25.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set-aside and the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh explanation to the show cause notice dated 25.09.2025 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The same shall be considered by the respondents after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Till the necessary orders are passed as ordered above, the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner shall be continued and the respondent authorities shall supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 09.10.2025 LSP 8 VS,J W.P.NO.27616 OF 2025 179 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27616/2025 09.10.2025 LSP