APHC010034472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 64 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3552] Smt K Narayanamma ...Appellant Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. N Ashwani Kumar Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Civil Supplies, GP for Revenue, Mr. Raju Gubbala CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 2nd February, 2026 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 09.12.2025 in WP.No.31455 of 2025. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer in regard to shop No.0223029 in Pattikayavalasa Village of Vizianagaram District for purposes of distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. It appears that complaints were received by the official respondents, who inspected the fair price shop on 16.07.2025 and found certain discrepancies in the stock. A report was submitted to the Revenue Divisional 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_64_2026 Officer where-after a show cause notice dated 29.09.2025 came to be served upon the petitioner which was appropriately responded to. After considering the response, by virtue of the proceedings, dated 18.10.2025, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed suspension of supply of essential commodities to the petitioner until further orders. In that background, the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and ordered the continuance of the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer. The basis for issuing such directions was primarily on the ground that no charge had been framed against the petitioner despite his having submitted the explanation on 10.10.2025. It was held that once the petitioner had submitted an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, then the authorities concerned ought to have evaluated it thoroughly and passed a reasoned order to justify the action and without doing so had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 18.10.2025, which was, according to the learned single Judge, untenable in law. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material on record. 4. We are not convinced with the view expressed by the learned single Judge inasmuch as the authority concerned i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer had duly considered the explanation rendered by the petitioner and the 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_64_2026 same having been found not convincing, the order of suspension of supplies came be to passed. Needless to say that the order of suspension is to be followed by a regular enquiry which according to the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order of 2018 is to be completed preferably within a period of three months. 5. The stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner (respondent No.6 herein) is that three months have already elapsed and the official respondents pursuant to the judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed an order restoring the engagement of the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer. 6. We are also not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that this is for the third time that the appellant has been engaged as a temporary dealer on account of repeated acts of omission and commission on the part of the same fair price shop dealer, the petitioner in the instant case, and that the restoration ordered by the official respondents was, therefore, not justified unless the enquiry was conducted thoroughly and appropriate orders passed. It was, therefore, sought to be urged that pending the conclusion of the enquiry, the appellant herein be permitted to discharge her functions as a temporary dealer. 7. In our opinion, although we are not fully convinced with the reasoning given by the learned single Judge in the judgment and order impugned, yet, keeping in view the fact that the official respondents have 4 HCJ & CGR, J WA_64_2026 already restored the right of the petitioner to make the supplies of essential commodities and there was no indefeasible right vested in the appellant as a temporary dealer to continue ad infinitum, we dispose of the present writ appeal with a direction to the official respondents to ensure that the enquiry is not only initiated against the petitioner (respondent No.6 herein) based upon the complaint/report which was received but the same is concluded positively within a period of four months from today. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl