APHC010006862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 414/2025 Between: J. Vijaya Lalitha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings vide Rc.No.C1/391/2024 dated 12.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1239035 situated in Peddannavaripalli village, Talupula Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, was suspended without conducting enquiry and without following the procedure as contemplated under A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (control) order, 2018. 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner 03.12.2024 on the alleged ground of certain irregularities. He further submitted that, the petitioner has submitted an explanation but the 3rd respondent (RDO), however, without considering the said explanation and without conducting any enquiry, has issued impugned order dated 12.12.2024 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop for an indefinite period. He further submitted that, this court, by way of interim order dated 12.03.2025, has protected the interest of the petitioner, which was extended until further orders and by virtue of the said interim orders, the petitioner is running the fair price shop. As such prayed to dispose of the writ petition by treating the interim order as final order. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 3rd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that, in order to protect the interest of the cardholders, the impugned order has been issued and further submitted that, in the event if this court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the authority concerned to conclude the enquiry in stipulated period in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1239035 situated in Peddannavaripalli village, Talupula Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. On the alleged ground of certain irregularities to the cardholders, a show cause notice dated 03.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner asking to submit explanation by framing charges and the petitioner has submitted her explanation. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent authorities, without considering the said explanation and without conducting an enquiry, issued the impugned order 12.12.2024 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop. 7. However, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, stipulates that the enquiry has to be conducted preferably within a period of three (03) months. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, so far, no enquiry was conducted. In view of the said circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The authorities shall conclude the enquiry at the earliest. Till conclusion of the enquiry by the authorities, the interim order passed by this court on 12.03.2025 shall continue.” Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS