IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMAT WRIT PETITION NO: 3176 OF 2025 TO O Jb. Between: Devarapalli Kalyani, W/o. Late Venkata Seshagirirao, aged 42 years, FP shop dealer. Shop No.0848005, Tangutur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole 3. The Collector(CS), Prakasam District, Ongole 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District 5. The Tahsildar, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District 6. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Singarayakonda, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one nature of Mandamus, declaring the action 4*^ Respondent-RDO who suspended the authorization of the petitioner through her proceedings, dated 30-1-2025 in Rc.No.1/84/2025, as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the sprit of Judgments of this Hon'ble High Court and also in the Ongole mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set- aside the proceedings of 4 th respondent-R.D.O, Ongole dt.30-1-2025 in Rc.No. 1/84/2025 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer Shop No.0848005 , of TanguturTown and Mandal, Prakasam District. t lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 respondents Nos.3 and 4 to supply essential commodities to petitioner's F.P. shop, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALAPATI VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010056142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3176/2025 Between: Devarapalli Kalyani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J W.P.No.3176of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of filed seeking the following relief: India is ...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 4‘^ respondent-RDO, Ongole, who suspended the authorization of the petitioner through her proceedings, dated 30-1-2025 in Rc.No. 1/84/2025, as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of judgments of this Hon’ble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set proceedings of 4'^ respondent-RDO, Ongole,dt.30-01-2025 i Rc.No. 1/84/2025 and consequently to direct the aside the in respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. Shop No.084005 of Tangutur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil appearing for the respondents. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Supplies 3. The petitioner has been acting as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.0848005, Tangutur village and mandal for 12 years without any complaint from any corner. While so, on 04.0T2025, the Civil Supplies Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Singarayakonda/R6 along with other officers inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner and without some 3 BSBJ W.P.No.3176of2025 proper verification of the stocks available in the shop and comparing the stock with e-POS machine and without examining the MDU operator, came to the conclusion that there was variation in the stock, viz., excess of 1725 kgs of rice and 10 packets of sugar and deficit of 44 packets of dal and accordingly, seized the available stock in the fair price shop. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated and a report came to be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole/R4. According to the petitioner, the excess stock of 1725 kgs of rice and 10 packets of sugar belong to some of the cardholders who had put their thumb impression on e-POS machine and gone to attend their agricultural works without taking the commodities on that day before the inspection and further, the authorities allotted only 60% of the stock, there was shortage of dal. The inspecting officials broke open the locks of the fair price shop and conducted inspection. The petitioner was not present at the time of inspection. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1820 of 2025 for allotment of commodities to the fair price shop. Though the said writ petition is pending before this Court, the authorization of the petitioner suspended. The impugned order of the 4*'^ respondent is against the control orders and guidelines issued by the government and the principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without the presence of the petitioner, the respondent authorities had highhandedly broken open the doors of the fair price shop and later obtained the signatures of the petitioner on white blank papers and prepared the panchnama and the statement. He further submitted that the petitioner had offered due explanation about the alleged'variation in the stock, but the same had not been considered and the impugned order was as was 4. 4 BSBJ W.P.No.3176of 2025 !? improperly passed. He further submitted that normally one or two Officers would inspect a shop, but in the present case many officers visited the shop of the petitioner as noted in the impugned order as well as the panchnama. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in Puli Sailu Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District and another^ at paras 3 and 4 as follows; As rightly pleaded by the petitioner, the nature of contraventions has not been indicated in the impugned order. As the order of suspension visits the dealer with serious adverse consequences, it is incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to indicate, at least in brief, the nature of contraventions on which he found it necessary to suspend the authorisation. Failure on the part of respondent No. 1 to refer to the alleged contraventions in the impugned order, thus vitiates the impugned order. The impugned order is accordingly set aside on this short ground. Respondent No. 1 is directed to allow the petitioner to function as fair price shop dealer pending the enquiry. He is also directed to complete the enquiry and pass order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the panchnama reveals that the petitioner was present as a phone call had been made to the petitioner and nowhere it was rrierttioned in the panchnama that the door was broke open. He further 5. 2013(3) ALT 640 (S.B.) I BSBJ W.P.No.3176of 2025 submitted that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory since it is in violation of Clause 12(e) of the Control Order, 2018 which prohibits a dealer to keep the commodity in the custody after taking authentication for distribution of the commodity. He further submitted that the explanation for the variation is also not satisfactory because 1728 kgs of the rice cannot be distributed on a single day to believe the genuineness of the explanation offered by the dealer. He further submitted that the dealer was not disputing the variation in the stock, but merely had explained the variation and that the huge variation of the stock itself is a ground under Clause 29(e) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 for passing impugned order and therefore it does not require interference and the decision cited has no application to the present case. 6. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the dealer is not disputing the fact of variation in the stock, but tried to explain the same. Due to huge variation beyond the permissible limit which cannot be prima facie satisfactorily answered with the explanation offered as it opposed Clause 12(e) of the Control Order, 2018, and the same requires a detailed enquiry in the main proceedings to prove its correctness, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order suspending the authorization of the petitioner, impugned order does not require any interference at this juncture. Therefore, the 7. However, the order suspending the authorization cannot be for an indefinite period. Therefore, the concerned authority shall conduct the enquiry and pass V 6 BSB, J W.P.No.3176of 2025 order as per law, within one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the impugned order gets set aside without further order. any 8 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole The Collector(CS), Prakasam District, Ongole The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District The Tahsildar, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Singarayakonda, Prakasam District. One CC to Sri Alapati Vivekananda, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER ANDHS^ WP.No.3176 of 2025 7 5 FEB 2C25 jX% . Current Section ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS