IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4311 OF 207^ AMARAVATI XIf. i-H j Between: Kalluri Narjirunnisha, D/o Chinna Hussain Sa, dealer for Shop No. 1336019, Yerraguntia Village Age 34 years, Occ; FP shop . , Sirvel Mandal, Nandyal Dist ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Collector (CS), Nandyal Dist. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal Town 4. The Tahsildar, Sirvel Mandal, Nandyal Dist. at Nandyal. Nandyal Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue may a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3'^ respondent vide Rc.No.CS/111/2025 dt: 1-2-2025 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of FP Shop No. without 1336019, Yerraguntia Village Sirvel assigning any valid reasons and without Mandal, Nandyal Dist. following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Distribution System 2018 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative (Control) Order, of principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 1-2-2025 by directing thJ Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass any other order this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice. J r 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 Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3^*^ respondent vide 'RC-No. CS/111/2025 dt 1-2-2025 in respect of FP Shop No. 1336019, f(bfraguntla Village, Sirvel Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. r V .1‘ .>• % Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. M. M. SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010082412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4311/2025 Between: Kalluri Narjirunnisha ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State of Andhra Pradesh and others 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 the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued Rc.No.CS/111/2025 dated 01.02.2025 suspending the petitioner’s by the 3^^ respondent vide authorization in respect of fair price shop No. 1336019, Yerraguntia Village, Sirvel Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice and reasons arbitrary consequentially set aside the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 by directing the respondents to continue petitioner as fair price shop dealer as-usual. WP No.4311 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.1336019, Yerraguntia village, Sirvel Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 2018, which is valid up to 31.03.2025. On 20.12.2025, the inspecting officials did not conduct inspection properly. On 11.01.2025 the 3'"^ respondent issued show cause notice alleging that during the inspection, they had found variation of stocks. Without considering the petitioners explanation and without verifying the record, the 3'^'^ respondent has issued the present impugned order dated 01.02.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner had been passed without giving reason as to why the explanation was not satisfactory and that the explanation had been rejected stating merely that it is far away from truth and the decision to suspend the authorization had been taken basing on mere report of the Tahsildar recommending disciplinary action. Therefore, he further submitted that the quasi judicial authority is supposed to give reasons for any decision taken on judicial side, but the impugned order had been passed without following the basic principle of giving reasons. He further submitted that a detailed enquiry may be held, if there is any violation of the Control Order, 2018, but without valid reason to suspend the authorization impugned order is not legally sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in K.Prabhavathi Vs State of A.P.'', wherein at paragraph No.9 as follows: the “9. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi-judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for 2020(6) Mi.D^09 WP No.4311of 2025 3 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 hoiding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 4. The leaned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal dated 18.02.2025. He contended that a final order would be passed after conducting the enquiry, but, for the time being, since the explanation is far from truth, the authorization was suspended. 5. In the light of the above decision, when the impugned order is examined, this Court does not find any reason to justify passing the order suspending the authorization pending enquiry. 6. As per the decision of this Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others^, it is held at para 27 as follows: “27. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the ^ 2015 see Online Hyd 680 WP No.4311of 2025 4 decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation: (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove ^the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer 5 WP No.4311 of 2025 but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed not later than ninety days from the date of completion of enquiry, the appointing authority reasons in respect of each charge and in accordance with the Control Order, (viii) The order prove charges. The as soon as possible but suspension. After shall record pass appropriate orders so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. till the expiry (IX) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, I not necessary for the , it is appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.” 7. As such, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, i open to the authorities to conduct the be no order as to costs. it is enquiry as per law. There shall As a sequel, miscellaneous stand closed. applications pending, if any, shall SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principle Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur 2. The Collector (CS), Nandyal Dist., at Nandyal. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal Town, Nandyal Dist. 4. The Tahsildar, Sirvel Mandal 5. One CC to Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa 6. Two CCS to GP for Civil Supplies, 7. Three CD Copies. //TRUE COPY// To, Dist. Nandyal Dist. Rao, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] ssb <^ch» V HIGH COURT CC DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4311 of 2025 0 'I MAR 2C25 ♦ Current Sectiun ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS