APHC010551022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28567/2025 Between: 1. GOPIREDDY SUBBA REDDY, S/O. SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, F.P SHOP DEALER OF F.P SHOP NO.1115101, R/O. 1/63, 1ST WARD. GOPAVARAM, PRODDATUR, Y.S.R DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA.2. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU DIVISION, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PRODDATUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.NO.28567 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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against me based on a 6A report and the proceedings in Ref.No.A3/1403/2025, dated 25.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 suspending my authorization as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently drop all further proceedings and set aside impugned proceedings and continue my authorization for the subject shop and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to continue me as fair price shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Ref.No.A3/l403/2025, dated 25.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.28567 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against me based on a 6A report and the proceedings in Ref.No.A3/1403/2025, dated 25.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 suspending my authorization as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently drop all further proceedings and set aside impugned proceedings and continue my authorization for the subject shop...” 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that:- a. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop for shop No.1115101 situated at Gopavaram Village, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to cardholders, without any complaints from any corner. b. While the things stood thus, the inspecting authorities came to the petitioner’s shop and conducted inspection on 05.07.2025 and recorded a variation of 4 VS,J W.P.NO.28567 OF 2025 (-) 300 kgs of rice out of total stock of 9160 kgs and (-) 2 kgs of sugar out of (+) 595 kgs, and half kg of ragi powder. Basing on the said inspection, the 4th respondent submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for Short “the Act”) on 08.07.2025 to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.2025 calling for explanation from the petitioner, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 14.08.2025. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, solely basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar/4th respondent under Section 6-A of the Act, issued the show cause notice dated 06.08.2025 without framing any specific charges against the petitioner. Although the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations, the 3rd respondent, without assigning any valid reasons and merely stating that the explanation was not convincing, suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.28567 OF 2025 5. When the matter came of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies disputing the fact of initiating disciplinary proceedings basing on 6-A report has furnished two separate reports submitted by the Tahsildar, one under Section 6A of the Act to the District Collector (CS), and another report submitted to the 3rd respondent for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner. Basing on which, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explanation. Thereafter, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered, and reasons were assigned as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner was found not convincing, as under:- “On perusal of the explanation stated above, it is convincing on the shortage of stock imply stated that, he has brought the reasons stated above he has not any supported relevant evidences as he was brought to the godown officials or higher officials. There by he violated the condition(p)(3) of A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Further, the delinquent F.P shop dealer himself submitted that, he has not noted the price details in the Price Board and thereby violated the condition of 12(n) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018.” 6 VS,J W.P.NO.28567 OF 2025 6. In view of the same, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent placing the petitioner’s shop under suspension. However, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after giving a fresh notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of hearing. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :28.10.2025 LSP 7 VS,J W.P.NO.28567 OF 2025 69 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28567/2025 Date :28.10.2025 8 VS,J W.P.NO.28567 OF 2025 LSP