APHC010088382026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5295/2026 Between: 1. G.SRINIVASULU, S/O NARASIMHULU AGE 53 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.1384111, HARIJANAWADA NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DIST.-518502 ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.-522503 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL.-518502 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAI DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST.-518502 4. THE TAHSIIDAR, NANDYAL URBAN MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST.- 518502 ...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.B3/CS/238/2026 dt.27-01-2026 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of FP 2 Shop No.1384111, Harijanawada Nandyal Town, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 27-1-2026 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, 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.B3/CS/238/2026 dt:27-1-2026 in respect of FP Shop No.1384111, Harijanawada Nandyal Town, 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 CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Questioning the order dated 27.01.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.B3/CS/238/2026 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1384111, Harijanawada Nandyal Town, 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 variations in the ground balance of commodities found during inspection of the Fair Price shop, issued show cause notice, for which the petitioner submitted explanation, however, the authorities, without considering the said explanation, in a mechanical way, suspended the authorization of the petitioner. He further submitted that the suspension order has been passed by duly taking into consideration the clause 29(a) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, which is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the said circumstances, if the impugned order is allowed to subsist, it affects the rights of the petitioner, as such, the same is liable to be set aside, accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that as the 4 authorities found variation in ground balance of commodities, suspended the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the procedure contemplated under law. He would further contend that the suspension order is only an interim measure pending enquiry therefore detailed reasons are not required to be assigned while passing such suspension orders. He further submitted that under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, (hereinafter referred to as Control Order, 2018) the competent authority has the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry even without issuing a show cause notice. He further submitted that the suspension order was passed to protect the interest of the cardholders; 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 ground on which the impugned order has been issued is that there was variation in the essential commodities as recorded in the panchanama during inspection. Though the petitioner contends that the impugned order refers to a wrong provision under the Control Order, 2018, mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law would not vitiate the order, when the authority otherwise has the power under the relevant Control Order to pass such an order. It is not in dispute that the Revenue 5 Divisional Officer (RDO), being the primary authority under the Control Order, has power to suspend the authorization of a Fair Price Shop dealer pending enquiry. The suspension order is only an interim arrangement made in the interest of proper distribution of essential commodities under the Public Distribution System and no detailed reasoned order is required to be passed. If a detailed enquiry is made at that stage, there remains nothing for conducting disciplinary/main enquiry In the present case, the suspension was ordered on the basis of variation in the ground balance of essential commodities noticed during inspection. In view of the same, the impugned order needs no interference of this Court. 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 well settled law that suspension of authorization pending enquiry is only a temporary measure intended to ensure a fair and proper enquiry into the alleged irregularities. When the competent authority has exercised its power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry into the alleged variations in stock, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under 6 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not ordinarily interfere with such an order, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or contrary to the procedure prescribed under law. In the present case, as the impugned order of suspension has been passed pending enquiry into the alleged irregularities found in the Fair Price Shop run by the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality warranting interference. 9. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed arbitrarily or vindictively. The suspension order always would be a precautionary order intended to facilitate a fair enquiry and also it would prevent the dealer from influencing witnesses or perpetuating further misconduct. 10. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order else the order of suspension shall be revoked. Further, the authorities are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop.” 7 11. 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: 24th February, 2026 RKS