APHC010036962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1906/2025 Between: 1. SRI KATIKA AKBAR,, S/O KATIKA BADESAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- FP SHOP DEALER SHOP. NO. 1320036, R/O D. NO. 7-64, GONEGANDIA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, ADONI DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GONEGANDIA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the 2 VS,J W.P.NO.1906 OF 2025 High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No. 1320036 situated at Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District vide Rc. (M). 1122/2024 dated 29.11.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14,19 and 21 and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased suspend the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Rc. (M). 1122/2024 dated 29.11.2024 by continuing the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer vide shop No. 1320036 situated at Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 vacate the interim order dated: 07.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 OF 2025 in W.P. No.1906 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.1906 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No.1320036 situated at Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District vide Rc. (M). 1122/2024 dated 29.11.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14,19 and 21 and consequently set aside the same and pass..” 2. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1320036 situated at Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District, in the year 2006. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. It is also the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from any cardholders or concerned authorities. 3. While things stood thus, due to change in the political scenario the local political leaders trying to grab the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership by influencing respondent Nos.2 & 3 to allot shop to the third parties of their choice. In that process, the inspecting officials inspected the shop of the petitioner on 02.11.2024 and found certain variations of (+)11.15 quaintals of fortified rice and (–) 5 half kg packets of sugar and a panchanama 4 VS,J W.P.NO.1906 OF 2025 was conducted and seized the stocks and recommended for 6-A case to the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice vide Rc.(M).1122/2024 dated 29.11.2024 framing one charge and calling for explanation from the petitioner as to why the petitioner’s authorization should not be cancelled on or before 11.12.2024 as well as on the very same day i.e., on 29.11.2024 the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.(M).1122 of 2024 placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension, pending enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.12.2024. Challenging the impugned proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent even without waiting for the petitioner’s explanation straightaway issued impugned proceedings and suspended the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner. It is further stated that during the course of inspection, the inspecting officials seized the stock 5 VS,J W.P.NO.1906 OF 2025 under the cover of panchanama and handed over the same to the 3rd respondent, after conducting an enquiry about the issue and finally, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.11.2024 calling for explanation on or before 11.12.2024 and on the very same day i.e., 29.11.2024 the petitioner’s authorization was also placed under suspension, pending enquiry. 7. When the matter came up for admission on 07.03.2025, this Court passed the following interim order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the authorization of the petitioner was suspended on 29.11.2024 and no enquiry is initiated so far. As per clause (8) of G.O.Ms.15, dated 01.08.2018, the enquiry should be completed within a period of three (03) months, but however, in the case on hand, the enquiry is not yet initiated so far. In the circumstances, there shall be an interim suspension of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.(M).1122/2024, dated 29.11.2024 for a period of six(06) weeks.” 8. On perusal of the impugned proceedings as well as show cause notice, it can be observed that both were issued on the 6 VS,J W.P.NO.1906 OF 2025 same day on 29.11.2024. The 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice framing a single charge against the petitioner, calling for explanation and directing the petitioner to attend before him on 11.12.2024. In such a case, the 2nd respondent ought to have waited till 11.12.2024 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ought to have passed the impugned proceedings placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension. But, in the present case, very curiously the 2nd respondent has placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension on the very same day i.e., 29.11.2024 even without waiting for the explanation from the petitioner. 9. In view of the impugned proceedings, placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension dated 29.11.2024 is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 11.12.2024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is needless to say that till such process is completed the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner. 7 VS,J W.P.NO.1906 OF 2025 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 06.01.2026 LSP