APHC010300702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 15716/2026 Between: 1. PARNAGONTA PARVATHAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATA SIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PERMANENT F.P SHOP DEALER OF F.P SHOP NO.1243017, R/O. NEERUKUNTIA PALLI H/O, GODDUVELAGALA VILLAGE, GANDLAPENTA MANDAL, CURRENTLY SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, (OLD ANANTHAPUR)-515521, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP-522238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHI-515133. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADIRI DIVISION, KADIRI-515591, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GANDLAPENTA MANDAL, GANDLAPENTA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT-515521. 5. M URMILA, W/O. M RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. NEERUKUNTIAPALLI, H/O. GODDUVELAGALA VILLAGE, GANDLAPENTA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT 515521. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER COURTS ORDER DT. 29.07.2026 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2026 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.F/247/2026, dated 02.06.2026 (served upon on 08.06.2026) issued by the Respondent No.3 hereby suspending the authorization issued in my favor as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the objectives and provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, and contrary to the well-establish ed legal principles, apart from being violative of my fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same, drop all further proceedings on the same allegations and direct continuation of my authorization for the subject shop and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to DIRECT the 3 Respondent to continue the Petitioner as the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Rc.No.F/247/2026, dated 02.06.2026 communicated on 08.06.2026 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to Permit the Petitioner to Implead the proposed Respondent (Temporary Dealer) as 5th Respondent in W.P.No.15716 of 2026 as well as in lA and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to vacate the Interim order dated 24.06.2026 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2026 in W.P.No.15716 of 2026 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. AYESHA AZMA S 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15716 of 2026 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.F/247/2026, dated 02.06.2026 issued by 3rd respondent suspending authorization issued in favour of petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same and drop all further proceedings on the same allegations and direct continuation of her authorization for the subject fair price shop. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondents. 3. Case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as permanent dealer of the Fair Price Shop bearing No.1243017 situated at Gandlapenta mandal, Sri Satya Sai district in the 4 year 1996, and the same has been renewed from time to time, and ever since the date of authorization, she has been discharging her duties without any complaint whatsoever. It is her case that in the month of October, 2025, some officials visited her shop stating that it was a routine enquiry for verification of the commodities, and a show cause notice dated 5.10.2025, signed on 28.10.2025, was communicated to her in the early days of November, 2025, directing to submit explanation by 05.11.2025 in respect of two allegations viz. she was not distributing the commodities and one Sri Malla Reddy was distributing the commodities and that her authorization was not renewed from time to time. On furnishing explanation and relevand documents, passed order dated 26.11.2025, suspending and cancelling her authorization. Challenging the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.33686 of 2025, and this Court set aside the impugned proceedings in the said Writ Petition, and as such, the petitioner is continuing the fair price shop. 5 It is the further case of the petitioner that on 06.05.2026, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Anantapur conducted inspection of the fair price shop of the petitioner and found no vatiations, but they relied upon another stock report which does not even contain fair price shop number of the petitioner and alleged that there exists shortage/backlog stock of 45 KGs of sugar, and 4th respondent, basing on the panchanama recorded the inspecting authorities, submitted a report dated 07.05.2026 to 3rd respondent, who issued show cause notice dated 16.5.2026, for which the petitioner submitted explanation. But, without considering the explanation, the impugned proceedings have been passed by 3rd respondent. 4. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit, denying the material averments in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia that at the time of inspection on 6.5.2026, the petitioner did not produce authorization certificate and that the inspecting officials verified ePos receipt of balance for the month of May, 2026 and verified the ground balances, and found 6 shortage of sugar (45 Kgs) in the fair price shop, for which the dealer has not given any explanation, and thereupon, explanation was called for, from the petitioner, and the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, and accordingly, her authorization was suspended vide the impugned order. 5. Respondent No.5, who was impleaded as per Order dated 29.7.2026 in I.A.No.2 of 2026, filed counter affidavit, denying the material averments in the writ affidavit, and stating inter alia that being Secretary ot Satyamma Talli Mahila Sangham, a Self Help Group of Neerukuntlapalli village, she was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for the subject fair price shop, on behalf of the Self Help Group, in the vacancy that aroseon account of suspension of petitioner’s authorization, and it is only till further orders to ensure uninterrupted distribution of essential commodities to card holders; that she is a proper and necessary party to the present Writ Petition and that the petitioner obtained ex parte interim order behind her back; 7 that the authorities followed the procedure contemplated, before passing the impugned order and the same is intra vires the Control Order. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry has been conducted by 3rd respondent prior to passing of the impugned order, and that the impugned order is be reft of any reasons; that the explanation submitted by the petitioner that it is backlong quantity of sugar which was not allotted to her during the relevant month and has been continuously reflected in the allotment statements for the past several years, and that there is absolutely no variation in the stock, has not been considered by 3rd respondent. He submits that the procedure mandated by this Court in its Order dated 19.11.2025 in W.P.No.24493 of 2025 has not been followed by 3rd respondent before passing the impugned order. He submits that in terms of Clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018, during pendency of the disciplinary 8 proceedings, the respondents can make necessary alternative arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities through a nearby fair price for convenience of card holders, and the proceedings are required to be concluded within a period of three months from the date of initiation. He submits that as per Clause 29A of the Control Order, 2018, the authorities have to take into consideration the commodities supplied during the relevant period, but cannot take into consideration the commodities which were backlog stock the E-Pos machine, to take action. Hence, he prays to allow the Writ Petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, in their respective arguments, reiterated the averments in their respective counter affidavits and contended that the authorities followed the procedure contemplated under the Control Order, 2018 and passed the impugned order, in view of variation in stock noticed during inspection of the subject fair price shop of the petitioner, and 9 accordingly, appointed respondent No.5 as temporary fair price shop dealer of the subject FP shop, and there is no infirmity calling interference of this Court. 8. In view of the foregoing contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to call interference of this Court with the impugned Order passed by 3rd respondent ? 9. This Court perused the material on record. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioner was as a Fair Price Shop dealer of shop No.1243017, Gandlapenta mandal, Sri Satya Sai district in the year 1996. It is her specific case that her authorization was being renewed from time to time and she has been distributing the essential commodities without any complaint whatsoever. 10. It is stated that on 06.05.2026, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Anantapur conducted inspection of the subject fair price shop of the petitioner and found no vatiations, but they relied upon another stock report which does not even contain fair price shop number of the 10 petitioner and alleged that there exists shortage /backlog stock of 45 KGs of sugar, and 4th respondent, basing on the panchanama recorded the inspecting authorities, submitted a report dated 07.05.2026 to 3rd respondent, who issued show cause notice dated 16.5.2026, for which the petitioner submitted explanation. A perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner goes to show that the alleged shortage/backlog of 45 KG of sugar is the backlog quantity of sugar which was not allotted to her during the relevant month, but the same has been continuously reflected in the allotted statements for the past several years and therefore there is absolutely no variation in the stock. It is her specific case that the alleged shortage of 45 KGs of sugar is not an actual shortage attributable to any irregularity on her part, but represents backlog stock reflected in the e- POS/allotment statements over the preceding years, and that there was no variation in the physical stock available at the time of inspection. 11 11. There cannot be any dispute that the respondent- authorities are empowered to inspect the fair price shop and initiate disciplinary proceedings in the event of any irregularity. Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 empowers the appointing authority to suspend or cancel the authorization of a fair price shop dealer, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing. The power of suspension, though intended to safeguard the proper distribution of essential commodities and the interests of cardholders, cannot be exercised mechanically or merely on the basis of an inspection report without due application of mind to the material available on record. However, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order has been passed by exercise of the powers conferred in accordance with the Control Order, 2018 and by duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 12. In the present case, the inspection was conducted by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement authorities on 12 06.05.2026, and a report dated 07.05.2026 was submitted to the third respondent alleging a shortage of 45 KGs of sugar. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 16.05.2026 and submitted her explanation disputing the alleged variation and contending the alleged shortage of 45 KGs of sugar is not an actual shortage attributable to any irregularity on her part, but represents backlog stock reflected in the e-POS/allotment statements over the preceding years, and that there was no variation in the physical stock available at the time of inspection. A perusal of the material placed before this Court indicates that the aforesaid explanation raises a specific and relevant issue concerning the distinction between the actual physical stock and the stock reflected in the electronic records. Such an explanation required consideration with reference to the relevant allotment statements, e-POS balance particulars, physical stock verification report and the connected records. The third respondent was required to examine the said material and record reasons for accepting or rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner. But, a perusal of the 13 impugned proceedings does not disclose adequate reasons demonstrating consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner with reference to the relevant records, or that the alleged shortage was examined in the light of her specific contention regarding backlog stock. The mere reference to the alleged shortage of sugar and the conclusion that the explanation was not satisfactory does not, by itself, demonstrate the application of mind required for passing an order of suspension under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. 13. It is well settled that an authority exercising quasi- judicial power is required to pass a reasoned order disclosing the basis on which it has arrived at its conclusion. The reasons must indicate not merely the existence of an allegation, but also as to why the explanation offered by the affected person does not merit acceptance and why suspension pending enquiry is warranted in the facts of the particular case. In M. Sirisha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P. Nos.24493, 24494 and 24496 of 2025, dated 14 19.11.2025, this Court reiterated the procedure to be followed by the authorities under the Control Order, 2018, while suspending or cancelling the authorization of fair price shop dealers. The Court emphasized that, upon receipt of the dealer's explanation, the competent authority is required to pass a reasoned order, duly considering the relevant reports and the explanation submitted, and that an order of suspension must disclose the reasons warranting such interim action. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment have been given a complete go-by by the respondent-authorities in passing the impugned Order. Although the third respondent contends that a shortage of 45 KGs of sugar was noticed during inspection, the existence of such an allegation cannot dispense with the obligation to consider the petitioner's explanation and record reasons in support of the decision to suspend her authorization. The discrepancy alleged by the authorities and the petitioner's explanation concerning 15 backlog stock must be examined on the basis of the relevant records in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2018. 15. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the stock particulars relied upon by the inspecting authorities do not bear the number of her fair price shop also raises an issue requiring verification with reference to the original inspection records and connected documents. This Court is not expressing any final opinion on the correctness of the alleged shortage or the petitioner's explanation. Nevertheless, such disputed factual aspects cannot be treated as conclusively established without proper examination by the competent authority. 16. A perusal of the record goes to show that appointment of 5th respondent as a temporary fair price shop dealer, pending the proceedings against the petitioner, is stated to have been made to ensure uninterrupted distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. Such an arrangement, being consequential to the suspension of the 16 petitioner's authorization, cannot by itself cure the procedural infirmity in the impugned order. At the same time, the interests of the cardholders must be protected while granting relief to the petitioner. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings dated 02.06.2026, having failed to demonstrate adequate consideration of the petitioner's explanation and the reasons warranting suspension of her authorization, cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Rc.No.F/247/2026, dated 02.06.2026 issued by 3rd respondent are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to resume and continue as the authorized fair price shop dealer in respect of the subject shop, subject to the subsistence and validity of her authorization and compliance with the applicable provisions of the Control Order, 2018. There shall be no order as to costs. 17 Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 28.09.2026. DRK 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15716 of 2026 28.09.2026 DRK