■ >s APHCOI 0559092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTO TV/VO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .4 m PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA^ WRIT PETITION NO: 29131 OF onon Between: Guddeti Adilakshmi, W/o. Subba Reddy, Aged Shop dealer'of F.P Shop No. 1114017, R/o. Village, Chapadu Mandal, Y.S.R District. about 62 years, Permanent F.P 5/203, Gunthachiyyapadu ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Government Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Secretariat Buildings, Civil Supplies Department Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Y.S.R District, 3. The Revenue Divisional District. Kadapa. Officer, Jammalamadugu Division, Y.S.R 4. The Tahsildar, Chapadu Mandal Y.S.R District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, NO.A3/826/2025, dated circumstances stated i pleased to issue may be more particularly declaring the proceedings in Ref. one 25.09.2025. i . issued by the 3^'^ Respondent arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the suspending my authorization. as S 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 and direct continuation of my authorization for the subject shop. lA 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 direct the Respondent to continue me as the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the operation of the proceedings in Ref. No.A3/826/2025, dated 25.09.2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court mjade the following order: V 1 VS,J W.P.No.29131 of 2025 APHC010559092025 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: 29131/2025 Between: 1.GUDDET1 ADILAKSHMI, , W/0. SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, PERMANENT F.P SHOP DEALER OF F.P SHOP NO. 1114017, R/0. 5/203, GUNTHACHIYYAPADU VILLAGE, CHAPADU MANDAL, 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. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU DIVISION, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, CHAPADU MANDAL, Y.S.R 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 pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Ref. No.A3/826/2025, dated 25.09.2025, issued by the 3rd Respondent suspending 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- T'; 2 W.P.No.29131 of 2025 established legal principles, apart from being violative constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300- onstitution of India, and consequently set aside the same and direct continuation of my authorization for the subject shop lA NO: 1 OF 207*; in Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased dLX b^v '"r* "le ac the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the operation of the NO.A3/826/2025, dated 25.09.2025, Petition Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: of my fundamental and A of the proceedings in Ref. pending disposal of the above Writ 3 i VS,J W.P.No.29131 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 an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Ref NO.A3/826/2025, dated 25.09.2025, issued by the 3rd Respondent suspending 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 and direct, continuation of my authorization for the subject shop...." 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop bearing No.1114017 situated at Guntachipadu village, Chapadu mandal, Y.S.R. District in the year 2018 and ever since, she has II been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, basing on a complaint submitted by the residents of Guntachipadu village, Chapadu mandal against the petitioner herein, the 3'^'^ respondent is alleged to have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and submitted a report vide Ref.No.B/02/2025, dated 03.06.2025 citing six allegations against the petitioner. Basing on the same, the 3 , respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.07.2025 seeking an explanation as to why her authorization should not be susptended, within a period of seven (7) weeks. Accordingly^e petitioner has submitted rd 4 vsj W.P.No.29131of2025 her explanation on 29.07.2025 without considering which, the a'"* has suspended the petitioner’s authorization of the fair impugned proceedings dated 25.09.2025. Hence respondent price shop vide the this writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, learned petitioner and learned Assistant GovernmenfPleader for counsel for the Civil Supplies. 5. On a perusal of the i observed that basing village, Chapadu mandal against the impugned proceedings dated 25.09.2025, it can be on a petition submitted by the resident of Guntachipadu ' petitioner alleging irregularities, the 4*^ s fair price shop. But, the date was conducted was not specified either in the cause notice issued to the petitioner respondent has submitted Ref.No.B/02/2025, dated 03.06.2025 with the following respondent has inspected the petitioner which the alleged inspection impugned proceedings or in the show 22.07.2025. Further, the 4**^ on on a report vide allegations; “1. Smt. Guddeti Adilakshmi Devi, while serving as the Fair Price Shop Dealer, has allegedly participated in government employment guarantee (MGNREGS) works and received benefits under the scheme, which is contrary to government rules. 2. Her husband, Sri Guddeti Subba Reddy, also reportedly working under MGNREGS Card No.050191) and availing benefits she continues to operate the Fair Price thereby violating the relating to the distribution commodities. IS (Job , while Shop, norms of essential government’s 5 4 VS,J W.P.No.29131 of 2025 3. It is reported that Sri Guddeti Subba Reddy is drawing a monthly pension of Rs.4,000/- under the NTR Bharosa Old Age Pension Scheme (Pension No. 11100006544), thereby misusing government welfare provisions. i&'. 4. It has been alleged that both the dealer and her husband neglected their responsibilities in managing the Fair Price Shop, as they were engaged in drought relief works, resulting in violation of the Fair Price Shop operational guidelines. 5. It is further alleged that the dealer supplied less quantity of essential commodities to cardholders, and when questioned, she and her husband verbally abused and threatened them. This is what we give; complaint saying wherever you like. 6. Despite government directions to distribute the May month’s essential commodities through the Fair Price Shop, the dealer reportedly distributed them through the MDU vehicle, which constitutes a violation of government instructions.” It can be seen from the above that the 4*^ respondent alleged that the petitioner is not supplying required quantity of essential commodities to the cardholders, but, nowhere it was alleged whether any variations were found in ^ the ground stock when compared to the stock register during the course of inspection; further, all the allegations leveled against the petitioner,* pr/Vna facie, are vague in nature. Undisputedly, based on the said allegations, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 22.07.2025 to which she 6. 6 VS,J • W.P.No.29131of2025 submitted her explanation on 29.07.2025. But proceedings would go to show that the 3'"'^ explanation submitted by the petitioner assigned for his dissatisfaction principle laid down in K. Prabhavathi Principal Secretary and others^ where it a perusal of the impugned respondent, except stating that the was not satisfactory, no reasons were over the explanation, which is against the legal V. State of A.P., was. observed as under: represented by its 11. Since the appointing authority acts authority, he must give cogpnt as a quasi judicial reasons specifying the need fnr gLacinq the dealer under suspension npnriing disniniin^rY The mere cryptic order that the enquiry. report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control committing Order, 2018 IS not sufficient to justify suspension. The, suspension nrH^r ch.ii not |ust signify the siihiective satisfaction of thA should demonstrate compulsive need fnr Officer but it suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry. 7. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization dealer • was suspended must a compulsory case which requires not of a fair price shop even without considering her explanation the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair prioe shop dealer dismissed on the ground that there i was an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price of 2025) before the Division on examining the facts and circumstances of the that as the authorization of the IS shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 Bench of this Court, wherein said case, the Division Bench observed ^2020 see Online AP 755 7 VS,J W.P.No.29131 of 2025 suspended without trying to test the veracity of the allowed by setting aside the appellant therein was explanation offered, the said writ appeal was passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back suspension order to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper • enquiry. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a 8. notice, the concerned reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 3^'" respondent impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the has issued the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. allowed and the impugned In view of the same, the writ petition is proceedings dated 25.09.2025 passed by the 3^^ respondent are hereby set- directed to continue the petitioner as fair 9. aside. Further, the respondents are price shop dealer of fair price Guntachipadu village, Chapadu mandal, Y.S.R. supplying essential commodities to the same, until the petitioner is found at shop bearing No.t 114017 situated at . District and continue fault in any other instance. No costs Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending m this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS assistant //TRUE COPY// To, Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh District. V 2. The District Collector, Y.S.R District, Kadapa. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Division, Y.S.R District. 4. The Tahsildar, Chapadu Mandal, Y.S.R District. 5. One CC to Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two QCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:27/10/2025 ORDER WP No. 29131 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS