APHC010009872026 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: 2358/2026 Between: 1. BANNARAVURI NAGAMALLESWARI @ TURLAPATI NAGA MALLESWARI, W/O RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER (UNDER SUSPENSION), R/O DOOR NO. 8-292/C, KARLAPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522111. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI - 522238. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, AND EX- OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI - 522238. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA - 522101. 2 4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA - 522101. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, BAPATLA DIVISION, BAPATLA - 522101. 6. THE DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICER, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA - 522101. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, KARLAPALEM, BAPATLA DISTRICT - 522111. ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the suspension proceedings Rc.No.390/2023-D dated 20-09-2023 issued by the 5th Respondent and the endorsement dated 22-11-2025 issued by the 6th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently set side the same and , reinstate petitoner as the authorized dealer of Fair Price Shop No. 0756010 with continuity of dealership and all consequential benefits, and to 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 suspend the impugned suspension proceedings Rc.No.390/2023-D dated 20- 09-2023 issued by the 5th Respondent and the endorsement dated 22-11-2025, and direct the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner as the authorized dealer of Fair Price Shop No. 0756010 pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: Questioning the proceedings vide Rc.No.390/2023-D, dated 20.09.2023, issued by the 5th respondent, suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price SHOP No.0756010, Agraharam Bazaar Sivalayam, Karlapalem Village & Mandal, Bapatla District, and the endorsement dated 22.11.2025, issued by the 6th respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for the Shop No.0756010 situated Agraharam Bazaar Sivalayam, Karlapalem Village & Mandal, Bapatla District, and has been discharging 4 duties without any complaint from any corner. He further submitted that officials, upon conducting inspection on 07.09.2023 and alleged to have found variations in the stock, a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered. The 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) issued a show-cause notice dated 20.09.2023 inviting explanation from the petitioner as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her and on the very same day the authority had passed impugned proceedings, suspending the petitioner’s authorization. However, the petitioner has submitted explanation on 25.09.2023. Thereafter the petitioner submitted several representations to the District Collector and raised several PGRS complaints. He further submitted that without considering the said explanation, without affording any personal hearing and without conducting proper enquiry and without providing sufficient time to submit explanation, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer had issued the impugned proceedings dated 20.09.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop dealer. In those circumstances, the petitioner was 5 constrained to file the present writ petition. 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 have found certain variations in stocks, suspended the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry as an interim measure keeping the interest of the card holders that too after following the procedure contemplated under law. 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 petitioner’s Fair Price shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry. 7. 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 6 consideration the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch. 8. 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.” 9. 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. 7 10. 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 order. If the enquiry is not completed within the stipulated time, the order of suspension dated 20.09.2023 shall be revoked. 11. 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 8 257 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2358/2026 Date: 02.02.2026 ANS