I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4683 OF 2025 Between: Yellapu Satish Kumar, S/o Late Satyanaraya, aged about 32 years. Permanent F.P Shop dealer, F.P Shop no.0341030, R/o Jampapalem Village, Yelamanchili Mandal, Anakapalli District. ...Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies) Anakapalli District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Civil Supplies), Anakapalli. The Tahsildar, (Civil Supplies) Yelamanchili Mandal, Anakapalli District. ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in passing the order vide Rc.No.206/2025/SA(E) dated 18.02.2025 suspending the authorization of Petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 0341030, Jampapalem Village, Yelamanchili Mandal, Anakapalli District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, consequently set-aside the same. 1. 2. 3. 4. 2018 and ■Pi 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the petitioner as the . efir. price shop dealer for Fair Price Shop No. 0341030, Jampapalem Village, Yelamanchili Mandal, Anakapalli District by suspending the operation of the order passed by the 3 Rc.No.206/2025/SA(E) dated 18.02.2025. rd respondent vide Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T S B V RAMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: I ✓ APHC010091482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4683/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Yellapu Satish Kumar, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TS B VRAMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: w 2 W.P.No.4683 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 3 respondent in passing the order vide Rc.No.206/2025/SA(E), dated 18.02.2025 suspending the authorization of petitioner’s fair price shop No.0341030, Jampapalem Village, Yelamanchili Mandal, Anakapalli District as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same...” rd 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.0341030, Jampapalem Village, Yelamanchili Mandal, Anakapalli District on compassionate ground by the 3'"* respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.1072/2022/SA(E), dated 20.07.2024 and since then, he has been distributing the commodities without any remarks, however at the instance of local political persons, a show cause notice vide Rc.No.206/2025/(E), dated 14.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner with frivolous allegations calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation within three days from the receipt of the show cause notice as to why the authorization shall not be cancelled. The charges made in the show cause notice are as follows: 03. “Charge-1: The low-price shopkeeper has not displayed boards indicating the selling price, stock and timeliness of the \ 3 W.P.No.4683 of 202s stock as per clause-12(n) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, and as per the rules and regulations of the said Act, it has been alleged that he has violated the above Act. Charge-2: As per the Government orders, the low-price shopkeeper has not lifted and distributed the goods properly to the cardholders and has distributed the rice supplied through the depot with rat droppings, dry leaves and sand and has failed to maintain the device clean.” The petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.02.2025 denying the charges and further stating that the alleged violations, even if true, are not major. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the 3'^ respondent on 18.02.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner rejecting the explanation stating that the petitioner had admitted both the allegations in his statement given to The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar and the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Yelamanchili at the time of inspection, however denied them only in the explanation. The 3 respondent opined that the petitioner violated the conditions laid down in Clause 12(n) (1-9) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Aggrieved by the impugned order, this writ petition was filed. 04. 05. rd The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there was no major violation such as variation in the stock or improper maintenance of registers or records, without making due inspection, just to cancel the authorization of the petitioner at the behest of the politically motivated persons, the impugned order was passed. He further submitted that since the alleged violations are not major, the authority could have reprimanded the petitioner instead of passing the 06. 4 W.P.No.4683 of 2025 impugned order which harshly affect the petitioner who is properly running the fair price shop. He further submitted that subjective satisfaction of the quasi judicial authority to suspend the authorization is not sufficient, but the order must speak cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry and placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in K.Prabhavathi vs. State of A.P. and others\ wherein at paragraph No.9 held as follows: “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 placed on record the written instructions of the 4*^ respondent dated 20.02.2025 which are replica of the impugned order and reiterated the same contents. 07. ^ W.P.No.1466 of 2020 (Dt.24.02.2020) 5 W.P.No.4683of 202^ Irrespective of the denial of the allegations against the petitioner under the above said two charges, as rightly contended by the writ petitioner, the action taken is harsh and beyond the proportion of the alleged violation of the Clauses of Control Order, 2018. Moreover, the order does not disclose any reason for keeping the authorization under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. So, it is a case fit to interfere with the impugned order. 08. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order respondent vide Rc.No.206/2025/SA(E), dated 09. rd passed by the 3 18.02.2025. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU assistantj^gistrar SECTIONWFICER //TRUE COPY// To The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State pf Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies) Anakapalli District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Civil Supplies), Anakapalli. The Tahsildar, (Civil Supplies) Yelamanchili Mandal, Anakapalli District. One CC to Sri T S B V Rama 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 i HIGH COURT < / DATED:20/02/2025 ORDER 5 2 “i FEB 2025 WP.No.4683 of 2025 O ^ Curreni Section ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS