APHC010063732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3408/2025 Between: Komma Parvathi ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.3408 of 2025 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide Ref.No.D/614/2024, dated 23.01.2025 by suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1118022, Agraharam Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without there being any valid reason, without issuing any notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold fair price shop No.1118022, Agraharam Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and pass…” 02. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.1118022, Agraharam Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District by the 4th respondent, in the year 2015. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that basing on the alleged variation in the stock, both disciplinary action as well as the action under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had been initiated against the petitioner, however the action based on the report under Section 6-A had been dropped by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 26.12.2024 and the same had been brought to the notice of the appointing authority, yet, without considering the same, the 3 W.P.No.3408 of 2025 impugned order was passed by suspending the dealership of the petitioner vide Ref.No.D/614/2024, dated 23.01.2025. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that he had not received instructions. 05. As can be seen from the record, though the violation of Clause 21(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 was found by the Joint Collector/3rd respondent and the charge had been held to be proved, taking a lenient view, the 3rd respondent had warned the petitioner/dealer to be more careful in future and maintain records and stocks properly, without imposing any serious penalty. However, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order suspending the dealership of the petitioner, not taking into account the lenient view taken by the 3rd respondent. 06. Since the operation of the impugned order would come operationally in conflict with the order passed by the 3rd respondent, without prejudice to the view that can be taken in the final order on enquiry, the impugned order can be set aside. 07. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 and the 4th respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and pass final order as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 10.02.2025 NSM 4 W.P.No.3408 of 2025 89 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3408/2025 Date: 10.02.2025 NSM