IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^O' Ui m •ft, PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4869 OF 2025 Between: Patan Basheer Khan, S/o. P. Lai Khan Aged about 73 years Permanent F.P Shop dealer F.P Shop No.1183006, Door no 21/20’ MandaTA^amryyS^ ^udddapah, Rayachoti ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh r' X J. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Goyernment Ciyil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District. ’ 2. The Joint Collector, Rayachoti, Annamayya District. Amamayy"a Dislrid°""' Rayachoti Mandal, Annamayya ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidayit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref. No. B/71/2025, dated 15.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectiyes of the proyisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well- established legal principles apart from being yiolatiye of the and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of fundamental 4* the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and drop all the further proceedings in pursuance of the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 r 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 the Respondents to continue the Petitioner forthwith as the fair price shop dealer vide FP Shop.No. 1183006 by suspending the proceedings in Ref. No. B/71/2025, dated 15.02.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010090382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] n MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4869/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Patan Basheer Khan AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of A.P. and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY 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 proceedings in Ref. No.B/71/2025, dated 15.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 2 WP No.4869 of 2025 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the and drop all the further proceedings. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows; same 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No. 1183006, Kothapalli, Rayachoti, Cuddapah, Annamayya District. As per the report submitted under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the 4*'' respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar had conducted inspection on 06.02.2024 at 12:30 P.M. at the subject shop and recorded that there was a variation in the stock of the shop to the extent of PDS fortified rice 297(+), Ragi 217(+). The 3' respondent issued the show cause notice dated 11.02.2025 for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation duly stating the entire factual aspect, but the respondent authorities did not consider the same. The respondent issued another show cause notice asking the petitioner to explain the variation in the stocks as reported in the panchanama. In turn, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Without any application of mind and without any reasoning the 3'^ respondent has issued the impugned proceeding suspending the authorization. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the variation of stock in the fortified rice is well within the permissible limit and the variation in the other items is very negligible and did not call for suspension of authorization, yet the impugned order had been passed. He further submitted that the period of suspension had not been noted and therefore it cannot be allowed for an indefinite period and as such the order is impermissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that order of suspension cannot be passed basing on report under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. WP No.4869 of 2025 3 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 it was 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.” The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that he had no written instructions and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. Perused the record. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order and the details of the variation as noted above, it is clear that the order is devoid of any to the necessity of passing the order of suspension pending enquiry. Moreover, the order was passed for indefinite period. That 4. r 5. reasons as ^ 2020(6) ALD 209 4 WP No.4869 of 2025 *# apart, the facts in this case do not call for any suspension of authorization pending enquiry. It is open for the authorities to conduct enquiry and pass final order, but the impugned order is not sustainable. 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: 8. “27. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the 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. containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation one. ' 2015 see Online Hyd 680 WP No.4869 of 2025 5 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 but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. (ix) It has to be noted that in ail cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.” 6 WP No.4869 of 2025 9. As such, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The authorities are at liberty to pass final order by conducting enquiry as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAWIMA assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To The Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Joint Collector, Rayachoti, Annamayya District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoti Division, Rayachoti, Annamayya District, The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoti Mandal, Annamayya District. One CC to Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. RAM HIGH COURT DATED;24/02/2025 5 13 MAR 2025 r ^ . Current aeciion ORDER WP.No.4869 of 2025 Co. .9: ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS