APHC010005302026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1270/2026 Between: 1. B.VENKATA KANAKA RAO, S/O B.RAGHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 0781133, KRISHNA BABU COLONY, GUNTUR WEST (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522004. 3. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522004 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to issue an 2 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the show cause notice bearing Rc.No. 1172/2025-B dt. 17-5-2025 as well as the suspension order bearing Rc.No.1172/2025-B dt. 19-5-2025 and continuing the F.P. shop dealership under suspension beyond 90 days, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the suspension order dt. 19-5-2025 bearing Rc.No. 1172/2025-B and restore the dealership, and to grant such 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 may be pleased to pass orders directing the 2nd respondent herein to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 0781133 of Krishna Babu Colony, Guntur West (M), Guntur District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Questioning the show cause notice vide Rc.No.1172/2025- B, dated 17.05.2025 as well as suspension proceedings vide Rc.No.1172/2025-B, dated 19.05.2025, issued by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K. Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, contended that the petitioner has been appointed as a dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0781133 of Guntur West Mandal, Krishna Babu Colony, Guntur District, and discharging his duties as dealer and supplying the commodities to the cardholders to the satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders since 25 years. While so, on 04.05.2025 at 11:30 AM, the 3rd respondent along with other officials upon conducting inspection in the petitioner’s fair price shop and alleged to have found variation in the stock, booked a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 17.05.2025 has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (the 3rd respondent herein) as to why the 4 petitioner authorization should not be cancelled by framing two charges, for which petitioner submitted explanation; however, the 3rd respondent without giving any findings on the said explanation and without conducting any enquiry as stipulated, suspended the authorization of the petitioner by order dated 19.05.2025. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that as the authorities found variation in stocks, suspended the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the procedure contemplated under law keeping the interest of the cardholders. He would further contend that the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that without considering the petitioner’s explanation submitted to the show cause notice impugned, the authorities have passed the suspension impugned order without giving reasons in detail. 5 7. Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, mandates that the appointing authority shall dispose the disciplinary case filed against the fair price shop dealers as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of filing, keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System. 8. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that enquiry had not been completed so far. 9. In the above said background, there are certain guidelines framed for dealing the cases on alleged grounds of irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealers vide C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015. The said guidelines have been framed by duly taking into consideration the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch. 10. Clause (h) of the said guidelines is appropriate for the present case and for quick reference, the same is extracted hereunder: “h. The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power.” 6 11. As per the above said provisions and the guidelines framed in the said circular, without issuing any show cause notice, the appointing authority can suspend the dealership of a dealer, pending enquiry, to protect the interest of the cardholders, by recording the reasons for such suspension. In the present case, as per the above said provision, the authority has suspended the petitioner’s dealership by recording the reasons that there is a prima facie evidence that the dealer/petitioner has contravened the provisions of Control Order, 2018 by committing irregularities (variations in stocks) and thereby passed the impugned order, as such, this Court find no irregularity or impropriety in issuing the said impugned order and hence, the impugned order needs no interference of this Court. 12. However, the Control Order, 2018, stipulates that enquiry has to be conducted preferably within a period of three (03) months and it is brought to the notice of this Court that, so far, no enquiry officer was appointed. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority concerned to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 7 order. If the enquiry is not completed within the stipulated time, the order of suspension dated 19.05.2025 shall be revoked. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02.02.2026 ANS 8 256 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1270/2026 Date: 02.02.2026 ANS