1 APHC010068212021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4090/2021 Between: 1. SHAIK MUJIBUDDIN, S/O. LATE KHADER BASHA, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP.NO.0926028, GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, . REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. SMT KOVUR KAMAKSHI, W/O VENKATA RAMANAIAH TREASURER, KAMAKSHI PODUPU LAKSHMI GROUP, GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE 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 order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order Rc.C.1857/2020, dt.09.02.2021 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore the 31-d 2 respondent herein cancelling the authorization of the petitioner F.P. Shop No.0926028 of Gangavaram Village, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without holding any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of provisions of clause 8(4) of the AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and to set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P. Shop of Shop No.0926028 of Gangavaram Village, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District by suspending the operation of the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Rc.C.1857/2020, dt.09.02.2021 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 19.02.2021 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P. No. 4090 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order Rc.C.1857/2020, dt.09.02.2021 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore the 31-d respondent herein cancelling the authorization of the petitioner F.P. Shop No.0926028 of Gangavaram Village, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without holding any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of provisions of clause 8(4) of the AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and to set aside the same and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0926028 of Gangavaram village, Kovur mandal, SPSR Nellore district in the year 2015 and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders ever since, without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the respondent authorities. 3. While so, on 14.12.2020, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Kovur along with Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Nellore have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and as they found certain discrepancies in the ground stock, they seized the commodities under a cover of panchanama. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 23.12.2020 4 framing two charges against the petitioner and sought for an explanation, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.01.2021. Thereafter, as the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2981 of 2021, pending the said writ petition, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned proceeding dated 09.02.2021 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner or by conducting an enquiry before taking an adverse action. Aggrieved by the said action of the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 19.02.2021, this Court has passed an interim order directing the respondent officials to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. 5. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit along with a vacate stay petition stating that subsequent to the inspection conducted by the respondent officials, the petitioner’s fair price shop was provisionally suspended on 23.12.2020 and a show cause notice was also issued on the same day seeking explanation from the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.01.2021. As the said explanation was not convincing and is also baseless, the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop was cancelled vide impugned proceedings dated 09.02.2021. It is further stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 19.02.2021, the petitioner’s fair price shop is being supplied with essential commodities and his authorization is restored subject to the finalization of the case under 5 Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. As such, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri. V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 09.02.2021, it can be seen that the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Kovur has submitted a report stating that the petitioner has indulged in clandestine business and requested to take necessary action, basing on which, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended vide proceedings in Rc.H.1857/2020, dated 23.12.2020. On the same day, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by framing two charges and his explanation was sought for as to why his authorization shall not be cancelled to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.01.2021. It can be seen from the impugned proceedings that the 3rd respondent, except stating that the said explanation is not convincing and that the same has to be disbelieved, no reasons were explained as to his dissatisfaction, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others1, it was observed as under: “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 6 not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 8. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 9. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 7 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 09.02.2021 are set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry in the light of the observations made herein. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :23.09.2025. Gss