APHC010494562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25843/2025 Between: 1. GAJJALAPU NAGAMANI, W/O A.ARJUNA RA AGE-52 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.3015033, KRISHNADEVIPETA VILLAGE GOLIGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, ANAKAPALLI DIST, AT ANAKAPALLI. 3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, NARSIPATNAM DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GOLIGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DIST. 5. SMT MUVVALA APARNA, W/O VARAHALU YUVA MAHALA SELF HELP GROUP R/O H.NO.2-45, KRISHNADEVIPATA VILLAGE GOLIGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DIST ...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 pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the respondent vide Rika.No.437/2025/LRDT/ 2 VS,J W.P.No.25843 of 2025 dt28-5-2025 entrusting the distribution work to the 5th respondent group without any order of suspension or cancellation in respect of FP Shop No.3015033, Krishnadevipeta Village, Goligonda Mandal, Anakapalli Dist., and without following due procedure as contemplated under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings dt-28-5-2025 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual 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 to Suspend the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rika.No.437/2025/LRDT/ dt-28-5-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.3015033, Krishnadevipeta Village, Goligonda Mandal, Anakapalli Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. 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 dispense with the personal appearance of the 3rd respondent on 25-09-2025 in WP.No.25843/2025 and pass IA NO: 3 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 dispense with filing of certified copy of the proceedings dt: 24-09-2025 passed in WP.No.25843/2025 and pass s IA NO: 4 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 to dispense with the personal appearance of the 3 respondent on 14-10-2025 in WP.No.25843/2025and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO 3 VS,J W.P.No.25843 of 2025 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.25843 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rika.No.437/2025/LRDT/ dt: 28-5-2025 entrusting the distribution work to the 5th respondent group without any order of suspension or cancellation in respect of FP Shop No.3015033, Krishnadevipeta Village, Goligonda Mandal, Anakapalli Dist., and without following due procedure as contemplated under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings dt: 28-5-2025 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual ….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Dealer of Shop No.3015033, Krishnadevipeta Village, Golligonda Mandal, Anakapalli District, in the year 1995 by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been running the Fair Price Shop without any complaint from any anybody whatsoever. The petitioner’s authorization was valid up to 31.03.2026. b) While the matter being so, on 29.03.2025 at about 3.50 p.m., the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) along with the Village Revenue Officer, KD Peta inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and verified the stock position. Though there was no variation between the e-pass device data and the 5 VS,J W.P.No.25843 of 2025 available ground stock, the officials prepared a panchanama and allegedly obtained the petitioner’s signatures on the said panchanama forcibly. Pursuant to the said inspection, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar submitted a report to the 2nd respondent on 01.04.2025 recommending initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that the said report was submitted without proper application of mind, as in the tabular statement enclosed, the allotment was shown as 7290 kgs, the sales is 7310 kgs, whereas the variation was shown as 2807 kgs, while the seized stock was mentioned as 4750 kgs. The said report itself clearly indicates that a false case was registered against the petitioner. Since the date of inspection, the 4th respondent has not allowed the petitioner to run the shop and not supplied the essential commodities for distribution, though no order of suspension or cancellation was passed. Despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam issued a show-cause notice dated 16.04.2025 directing her to submit an explanation as to why her authorization should not be cancelled permanently within three (3) days from the date of receipt of said notice. Thereafter, without conducting any enquiry or verifying the relevant records, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam passed the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 appointing respondent No.5 as a temporary dealer of Fair Price Shop No.3015033. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted her explanation contending that the mediators report and the 6-A proceedings were 6 VS,J W.P.No.25843 of 2025 fabricated, and that if the stocks were properly verified, there would be no variation as alleged by the authorities. Despite this, the respondent authorities, without issuing any order of suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, appointed the 5th respondent as temporary dealer and entrusted the distribution work to her. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 28.05.2025, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. On 25.09.2025, this Court passed the following interim order: “….the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer and to supply essential commodities, pending disposal of the present writ petition.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has stated that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on 25.09.2025, the petitioner is being continued as the Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.3015033, Krishnadevipeta Village, Goligonda Mandal, Anakapalli District. 6. Even otherwise, as seen from the facts presented and the record available, it is evident that the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar has submitted a report to the 2nd respondent on 01.04.2025 recommending initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Basing on the said 6-A report, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show- cause notice dated 16.04.2025 to the petitioner without there being any other separate report for initiating disciplinary proceedings and thereafter, vide 7 VS,J W.P.No.25843 of 2025 impugned order dated 28.05.2025, appointed the 5th respondent as the temporary dealer of the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner. 7. This Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020, had an occasion to deal with a case where disciplinary action was sought to be initiated against the Fair Price Shop dealer basing on the 6-A proceedings, without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, similar to the present case. While examining the requirement under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018, this Court, by order dated 08.01.2020, allowed W.P.No.500 of 2020 and the relevant paragraphs of the said order are as under: “7. …..In view of specific contention, it is necessary to advert to Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, and the same is extracted hereunder: “The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions and authorization.” 8 VS,J W.P.No.25843 of 2025 It appears from Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, two separate reports are required to be submitted by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and proceedings under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act. 9. When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C. Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018.” ….Hence, I find that passing order, based on the report filed by Tahsildar, Santhabommali for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C. Act as well as initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is a serious illegality and contrary to Control Order, 2018.” 8. In the instant case also, as the authorities issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and appointed the 5th respondent as temporary dealer in place of the petitioner, without there being a separate report as required to be filed by the inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner in terms of Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned action is unjustified. Further, the record reveals that there are a lot of discrepancies in the data i.e., while the allotment was shown as 7290 kgs, the sales were shown as 7310 kgs, whereas the variation was recorded as 2807 kgs, and the seized stock as 4750 kgs., which clearly shows that proper verification was not carried out. 9 VS,J W.P.No.25843 of 2025 9. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. In view of the same, the respondent authorities are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.10.2025 KGR