APHC010096562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Twenty Fourth day of February, 2025 Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 5019 of 2025 Between: K Chandra Sekhar Reddy ...Petitioner AND The State of AP 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: 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 impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.D/CS/139/2025 dt.11-2-2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the fair price shop No.1349019, Venkatapuram Village, Done Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary mala fide and contrary to the provisions Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 11-2-2025 by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer as usual. 2 WP No.5019 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is appointed as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No. 1349019, Venkatapuram Village, Done Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 2005. On 11.02.2025, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice alleging that the petitioner is not supplying the essential commodities properly to the card holders. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner is distributing the ration with a metal box for which the beneficiaries are getting less quantity. The Revenue Inspector, along with Village Revenue Officer, inspected the shop of the petitioner and found that the shop was locked and during the enquiry, the villagers complained that the petitioner is not residing in the village. Then, the 3rd respondent issued the present impugned order suspending the petitioner’s authorization on the same day. On 19.02.2025, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Without considering the explanation, the 3rd respondent passed present impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there was no variation, without conducting any inspection, basing on the 4th respondent’s report, the 3rd respondent had passed impugned order with cryptic reasons falsely alleging that the dealer was distributing the essential commodities with a metal box in spite of the detailed explanation against a show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent. 4. The leaned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reported that he had not received the written instructions. 5. In K.Prabhavathi Vs State of A.P.1, at paragraph No.9 it was held as follows: 1 2020(6) ALD 209 3 WP No.5019 of 2025 “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.” 6. The authority has to record the reason for passing the order of suspension pending enquiry. However, no such reason was recorded in the impugned order. 7. For the above reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. 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