APHC010032902026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 72 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-27 [3552] Ambarapu Naga Lakshumma ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Nandireddy Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Civil Supplies for R.1 to R.5 Mr. K. Sri Sai Sanjay representing Mr. Nagendra Babu Paragati for R.6 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 30th January, 2026 P C : The appellant herein came to be appointed as a temporary dealer on account of the order of suspension passed by the official respondents against yet another temporary dealer who was the petitioner in WP.No.30899 of 2025. 2. The petitioner – Smt C. Reddy Kumari challenged the proceedings issued against her on the ground that it violated principles of natural justice. 3. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by holding that the authorities had not issued any show cause notice to the petitioner nor sought her explanation before taking adverse action and that the action was taken only upon a representation which was submitted by the Tahasildar. In that view of the mater, proceedings, dated 15.10.2025, issued by the official respondents were set aside. The necessary consequence of the order passed by the learned single Judge would be that the appellant herein, who was in the meantime appointed as a temporary dealer, would have to make way for the petitioner, who is respondent No.6 in the present writ appeal. 4. Although learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the enquiry initiated in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 ought to be completed within 3 months from the date of the order of suspension of a fair price shop licence yet, learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy us as to the consequence of the authorities’ failure to conclude the enquiry within the prescribed time. In any case having gone through the judgment and order impugned, we find no illegality in the view expressed by the learned single Judge. 5. We find no merit in the present Writ Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl