APHC010090122025 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. 4845/2025 Between: Pikkili Krishnaveni ...Petitioner AND The State of AP and others ...Respondent(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Papudippu Sashidar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: O R D E R: 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/2749/2024, dated 18.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 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.4845 of 2025 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and drop all the further proceedings. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.1182084, Vijayamunireddy colony, Rameshwaram, Proddatur Mandal, Cuddapah, YSR District. The Deputy Tahsildar conducted inspection on 07.10.2024 at 11:00 AM at the subject shop and recorded that there was variation in the stock to the extent of PDS fortified rice (-)145, sugar (-) 7 kgs, total value of Rs.6951.00 was shortage on ground. The 3rd respondent issued the show cause notice dated 30.10.2024 for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation duly stating the entire factual aspect, but the respondent authorities did not consider the same. The 3rd respondent issued the present impugned proceedings vide Ref No.B/2749/2024 dated 18.12.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition was filed having no other alternative. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the variation of the stock in fortified rice was well within the permissible limit and the variation in the other items was 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 such an order is impermissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an order of suspension cannot be passed basing on report under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3 WP No.4845 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in K.Prabhavathi Vs State of A.P.1, 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.” 5. 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 reasons as to the necessity of passing the order of suspension pending enquiry. Moreover, the order was passed for indefinite period. That 1 2020(6) ALD 209 4 WP No.4845 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. 8. In C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others2, 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 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 2 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 680 5 WP No.4845 of 2025 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 all 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.4845 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. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date:24.02.2025 PNV