APHC010096572025 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: 5003/2025 Between: R Venkata Ramudu ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh 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.CS/129/2025 dated 3-2-2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the fair price Shop No.1339019, Todendlapalli Village Chagalamarri Rural 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 malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public 2 WP No.5003 of 2025 Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 3-2-2025 by directing the respondents to continue petitioner as fair price shop dealer as usual. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.1339019, Todendlapalli Village Chagalamarri Rural Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 2005. On 23.12.2024 the Deputy Tahsildar, Allagadda along with VRO, Todendlapalli village inspected the shop of the petitioner and found shortage of 4 kgs of sugar and there was no variation in respect of other commodities. The 3rd respondent issued show cause notice on 22.01.2025. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.01.2025. Without considering explanation, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order on 03.02.2025 suspending the authorization in a mechanical manner without application of mind. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there was no variation in rice and the alleged variation of the stock of sugar was deficit by 4 kgs which is within permissible limit, the order of suspension was passed illegally. 4. The leaned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reported that he had not received the written instructions. The inspection team had requested to submit the ePoS machine and authorization of the said F.P. shop, as they verified the details of the stock compared to ground balance as follows as can be seen from the record: Mandal: Chagalamarri F.P.Shop No.1339019 Village: Todendlapalli 3 WP No.5003 of 2025 S. N Name of the item O.B. (Kgs) Received stock (Kgs) Total stock (Kgs) Issues (Kgs) C.B.in EPOS (Kgs) Ground balance (Kgs) Variatio n (Kgs) 1 Fortified Rice - 5400 5400 --- 5400 5400 NIL 2 Red Gram Dall -- 278 278 --- 278 278 Nil 3 Sugar (each packet 500 grams) -- 350 350 --- 350 346 (-)4 5. It is clear from the table of contents that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely correct. Moreover, no reason is stated in the impugned order as to the necessity of passing the impugned order of suspension. 6. As per 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 1 2020(6) ALD 209 4 WP No.5003 of 2025 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.” 7. The authorities failed to record the reason for passing the order of suspension pending enquiry. 8. For the above reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. 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