APHC010096592025 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: 5006/2025 Between: Kasetty Nagaiah ...Petitioner AND 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/79/2025 dt.10-2-2025 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of fair price shop No.1338028, Bachepalli Village, Allagadda 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 provisions of Order, 2018 2 WP No.5006 of 2025 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt. 10-2-2025 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. 1338028, Bachepalli Village, Allagadda Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 2008. On 20.12.2024 at about 11.00 A.M., the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Allagadda along with VRO inspected the shop of the petitioner and found shortage of 20 kgs (-) ragi flour and there was no variation in respect of other commodities. All the allegations are minor irregularities and marginal variations, as such without considering the same, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice on 08.01.2025. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.01.2025. The petitioner filed W.P.No.2557 of 2025 and the same is pending for consideration. Without considering explanation, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order on 10.02.2025 suspending the authorization in a mechanical manner without application of mind. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no variation in the other items of stock, but only basing on the alleged variation of deficit of 20 kgs of ragi powder, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended. In this regard, he submitted that 200 packets of ragi powder had been given on 26.04.2024, but, as the powder was in bad condition, 180 packets had been returned and only 20 packets had been retained and they were not in a condition to consume and therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration, however only based on such stock, the impugned order had been deliberately passed to deprive the petitioner of the dealership. 3 WP No.5006 of 2025 4. The leaned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions reporting that the stocks found less in the ground balance clearly established the fact that the dealer had indulged in the mal-practices in the distribution of ECs to the card holders under public distribution system. He further submitted that the variation is 100% and that non submission of his explanation within stipulated time would be construed that he has nothing to offer as explanation. Mandal: Allagadda F.P.Shop No.1338028 Village: Bachepalli 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) Varia tion (Kgs) % of allowa ble variati on is 1.5% (in kgs) 1 BPL (PDS) 1123 10500 11623 10897 728 728 0 0 2 Jowar 193 600 793 793 0 0 0 0 3 Ragi Powder 20 - 20 - 20 - -20 100% 4 Redgram 32 403 435 433 2 2 0 0 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 of authorization pending enquiry. 6. As per the decision of this Court in K.Prabhavathi Vs State of A.P.1, at paragraph No.9 it was held as follows: 1 2020(6) ALD 209 4 WP No.5006 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.” 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