APHC010082422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4312/2025 Between: R. Sudarshan Reddy ...PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.NO.CS/77/2025, dt:27-1-2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the FP Shop No.1338045, Peraipalle Village, Allagadda Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) 2 W.P.No.4312 of 2025 Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt:27-1-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass…” 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as permanent dealer of the fair price shop No.1338045, Peraipalle Village, Allagadda Mandal, Nandyal District vide Authorization No.45/NDL/ALG/2018, dated 31.03.2023. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though there is no variation in the stock as shown in the table below, frivolous charges were framed against the petitioner and the impugned order was passed suspending the dealership of the petitioner. He further submitted that the documents enclosed to this petition would clearly show that the petitioner had been residing at the approved address, yet, without considering the said evidence, a hasty order was passed on petty grounds suspending the dealership of the petitioner. 04. In the impugned proceedings, it was mentioned that there was the stock in the shop as follows: S L N O Name of Item Opening Balance (Kgs) Received Stock (Kgs) Total Stock (Kgs) Issues (Kgs) Closing balance in ePoss(K gs) Ground Balance (Kgs) Variat ion (Kgs) % of Allowable Variation is 1.5% (in Kgs) 1 BPL (PDS) 1172 4650 5882 4149 1673 1673 0 0 2 Jowar - 300 300 300 0 0 0 0 3 Sugar - 300 300 300 0 0 0 0 4 Redgram dal 24 200 224 224 0 0 0 0 5 Ragi Powder 4 - 4 - 4 4 0 0 It was further mentioned that the cardholders said that the dealer had not been living in Peraipalle Village for about eight (08) years and the dealer 3 W.P.No.4312 of 2025 would come only to take the commodities and they requested to take action; further the dealer had not displayed the sample food grains being supplied and the stock-cum-price list. 05. So, the following charges were framed: Charge No.1: The Inspection team noticed, that the F.P Shop dealer was not displayed the samples food grains being supplied through his fair shop/authorization number and reference and validity (Stock cum price list and not displayed the Sign Board in Telugu/English language) violated clause 12(n) (9) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Charge 2: The inspection team interacts with the cardholders and village people, the card holders said that the dealer of the F.P Shop No.1338045 Sri R. Sudarshan Reddy has not been living in Peraipalle village for about 8 years. The Dealer comes to the village only for taking essential commodities from godown and for handed over the essential commodities to the MDU operator and card holders and the F.P Shop dealer is violated the clause 8 (20) under form of authorization issued to the authorized fair price shop or stockiest of A.P.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. 06. The dealer submitted explanation denying the charges, yet, based on the report of the Tahsildar, Allagadda, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended for a period of 90 days. 07. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 4th respondent, dated 19.02.2025, which are the replica of the impugned order that the petitioner had no necessary documents against the allegations. 08. There is no record as to who are the cardholders examined and what are their statements. No copy of panchanama was filed to show that there was no display as noted in the charge. Though there was no variation in the stock, merely based on the unfounded allegations, the dealership was 4 W.P.No.4312 of 2025 suspended. In K.Prabhavathi Vs State of A.P. and others1, this Court held as follows: “9. 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 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.” 09. As such, the impugned order prima-facie lacks a legal justification. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order vide Rc.No. CS/77/2025, dated 27.01.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ++++++++++++++++++ ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 19.02.2025 SCH 1 2020(6) ALD 209 5 W.P.No.4312 of 2025 467 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4312/2025 Date: 19.02.2025 SCH