APHC010027752026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1868/2026 Between: 1. S AARIFA, W/O SK.MAHABOOB BASHA AGE.37 YEARS, OCC. F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1384135, UPPARIPETA NANDYAL TOWN NANDYAL URBAN MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST.-518502 ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL.- 518502ST.-518502 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST.-518502 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NANDYAL URBAN MANDAL, NANDYAL DI ...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 to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/2858/2025 2 dt.29-12-2025 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 1384135, Upparipeta Nandyal Town, Nandyai Urban Mandal, Nandyai Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without foilowing the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary maiafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Pubiic Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt.29-12-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop deaier as usual, 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 Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/2858/2025 dt:29-12-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.1384135, Upparipeta Nandyal Town, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that she is a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1384135 situated at Upparipeta Nandyal Town, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal District. The petitioner holds a valid authorization under clause 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public 3 Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Control Order, 2018’), which is in force up to 31.03.2027. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been running the fair price shop to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities and the card holders and that there were no complaints whatsoever against her. While so, on 14.11.2025, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) Nandyal along with Ward Revenue Secretary, Upparipeta Secretariat, inspected the shop. During the inspection, the stock was verified, and no variation was found in the available stock. The inspecting authorities left the shop without seizing any stock and without drawing any panchanama. It is her further case that, subsequently, based on a report dated 15.11.2025 submitted by the Tahsildar (the 4th respondent herein), without properly verifying the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer (the 3rd respondent herein) issued a show cause notice dated 16.12.2025 alleging variation of 256(+) kgs of Rice and 18 kgs of jowar, for which, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 22.12.2025, contending that at the time of inspection, available stock of Rice is 857 Kgs not 1113 Kgs, which is containing in 17 bags and loose of about 7 Kgs. Further, the Jowar is 37 Kgs not 55 Kgs as alleged in the show cause notice. It was specifically stated that the inspecting authorities, being satisfied with the verification, did not seize any stock nor handed over any stock for further inspection. It is the further case of the petitioner that, after she 4 submitted her explanation, the Village Revenue Officer subsequently seized the available stock on 05.01.2026. However, prior to this seizure, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2025, suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry, the same is challenged in the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the 3rd respondent issued the show cause notice dated 16.12.2025 mechanically without properly examining the inspection report submitted by the 4th respondent. During inspection, no stock was seized, which indicates that there were no irregularities. Further, the suspension order was passed without recording cogent reasons and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that if the said order is allowed to continue, it would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in K. Prabhavathi v. State 5 of Andhra Pradesh1, and prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the suspension order was passed in accordance with the Control Order, 2018. As per the Control Order, 2018, to protect the interests of card holders. As a prima facie case was found against the petitioner, rightly suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the orders impugned, as such, no indulgence can be shown on the petitioner. No valid grounds have been raised warranting interference of this Court, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer holding authorization under Clause 8 of the Control Order, 2018. Based on the inspection report submitted by the Tahildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice dated 16.12.2025, to which the petitioner submitted her explanation on 22.12.2025. The petitioner contends that without seizure of stock on the date of inspection and without considering her explanation the suspension order dated 29.12.2025 was passed. A perusal of the 1 2020 SCC Online AP 755 6 suspension order would indicate that the 3rd respondent taking note of both the inspection report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner, found prima facie case against the petitioner accordingly, issued suspension order pending enquiry. Further, the seizure of stock was occurred after the impugned suspension order i.e., on 05.01.2026 and this Court cannot adjudication the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as they are disputed facts. 7. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in K.Prabhavathi (supra), relevant para reads as follows: “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.” 8. In the judgement relied by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge has taken due note of the fact that cogent reasons were not specified in the order passed suspending the dealer therein pending disciplinary enquiry, but such is not the case on hand. 7 9. This court in W.P.No.36020 of 2025 has taken into consideration the circular vide C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015 in force wherein certain guidelines were framed for dealing the cases on alleged grounds of irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealers. 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.” 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 issued the impugned order, as such, this Court find no irregularity or impropriety in issuing the 8 impugned order and hence, the impugned order needs no interference of this Court. 12. Similar views have been expressed by this Court in W.P. No.40283 of 2022, wherein suspension pending enquiry was upheld. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case and decide whether the petitioner committed irregularities or not. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent. 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: 23rd January, 2026 RKS