APHC010027732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1871/2026 Between: 1. N HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O RAGHU RAMAIAH AGE.44 YEARS, OCC. FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1337032, RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE RUDRAVARAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST.-518514 ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.-522237 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL.-518501 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DIST.-518501 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RUDRAVARAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. - 518514 5. SMT CHAGALAMARRI HASINA, W/O BASHA R/O H.NO. 10-74, BORUGULA BATTI RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST.-518514 ...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 2 may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry within stipulated period of 90 days and continuing to place the petitioner under suspension for indefinite time vide Rc.NO.CS/1280/2025 dt.25-8-2025 in respect of the FP Shop No.1337032, Rudravaram Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Nandyal Dist., is contrary to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in E.Lakshmi Narayana vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and others and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently revoke the suspension order dt.25-8-2025 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner 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 to Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.NO.CS/1280/2025 dt:25-8-2025 in respect of Shop No.1337032, Rudravaram Village, Rudravaram 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: 3 ORDER: Questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry within stipulated period of 90 days and continuing the petitioner under suspension for indefinite time vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dated 25.08.2025 in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1337032, Rudravaram Village and Mandal, Nandyal District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, 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 writ affidavit would contend that the authorities, alleging that there is shortage in fortified rice and sugar, found during inspection of the fair price shop of the petitioner, without conducting any panchanama, basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent dated 19.03.2025, passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for a period of 90 days referring to show cause notice dated 22.03.2025 which was not served on the petitioner. He further submitted that in the suspension order, the period of suspension was mentioned as 90 days. Though the said period has been expired, till now neither the enquiry was concluded nor suspension was revoked. He would further contend that though Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, mandates completion 4 of enquiry within a period of three (03) months, the authorities did not conclude the enquiry till now, therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. He further contended that pursuant to the directions of this Court personal notice has been sent to the 5th respondent and the same has been received under acknowledgment which is filed before this Court by way of memo. 4. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that as the authorities found variation in the stocks in the fair price shop, suspended the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the procedure contemplated under law. He would further contend that completion of enquiry within a period of three (03) months is not mandatory and it is only advisory as could be perceived from the language employed in clause 8(4)(2) of the Order, 2018, and therefore 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 vide proceedings in Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dated 25.08.2025. As could be seen from the record though a notice has 5 been served on the 5th respondent, she did not choose to put up her appearance and contested the writ petition. 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. Simply because the clause says that enquiry to be concluded ‘preferably’, it does not mean that the authorities can sleep over the matter for years together. Admittedly, since the date of suspension of Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, more than three months have been lapsed. Hence, the proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dated 25.08.2025 is hereby set aside, however, subject to outcome of the enquiry and the respondent authorities are directed to conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Till such time, the 6 respondent authorities are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 23rd February, 2026 RKS