APHC010096202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5437/2026 Between: 1. SANA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PERMANENT F.P SHOP DEALER OF F.P SHOP NO. 1182013, DOOR NO.4-383, VENKATESWARA PETA, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA, Y.S.R DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516360. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA, 516001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU DIVISION, Y.S.R DISTRICT, 516434. 4. THE ENFORCEMENT TAHSILDAR, PRODDATUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT, 516360. 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, PRODDAATUR TOWN (WARD 44 SACHIVALAYAM), Y.S.R DISTRICT, 516360. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 toPleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.A3/1715/2025, dated 29.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and continue my authorization for the subject shop 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 pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to continue me as fair price shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Ref.No.A3/1715/2025, dated 29.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Ref.No.A3/1715/2025 dated 29.09.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1182013, Venkateswara Peta, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1182013 situated in Venkateswara Peta, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, and he is a permanent dealer. While so, a 6A enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. Thereupon, the Tahsildar, Proddatur, submitted a report stating that Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, along with Food Inspector, Proddutur, and the Village Revenue Officer, Proddatur Town and Mandal, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 06.09.2025 and requested the petitioner to produce the records pertaining to the subject shop. Wherein the shop dealer did not produce authorization and upon verification of the records and physical stocks with reference to the e-Pos stock, certain variations were found. Accordingly, by recording the irregularities, a report was submitted for conducting necessary enquiry into the irregularities committed by the petitioner and accordingly a show 4 cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation with regard to the said irregularities. As an interim measure, the authorization was suspended temporarily under proceedings dated 29.09.2025. The same has been assailed on two grounds i.e., 1) the said enquiry has been initiated only basing on the 6A report, and 2) the authorities have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has no authorization. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 31.03.2025 itself a challan was paid for renewal and by virtue of Clause 8(11) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, once challan is paid it is deemed that the authorities have issued authorization. However, the said aspect was not taken due note of. In the said circumstances, passing orders impugned is only unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders. He further submitted that as per Control Order, 2018, particularly Clause 11(c) clearly envisages that dealer shall apply for renewal of authorization one month before expiry of validity duly remitting an amount of Rs.500/- as fee for renewal of authorization the fee prescribed for renewal of authorization and such application shall be disposed by the Appointing Authority before 31st March. All the 5 applications received for renewal of authorization beyond 28th/29th of February and authorizations for which applications were not received shall stand cancelled and the entire security deposit shall automatically be forfeited. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted her challan on 31.03.2025 i.e., beyond the prescribed period. As such, her authorization shall stand cancelled. The petitioner has not made out any ground warranting interference of this Court, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is relevant to extract Clause 8 (11) (a) and (c) of the Control Order, 2018:- (11) Period of authorization and fees chargeable: (a) Every authorization issued under this Order shall be valid for a period of two years ending by 31st March and shall be issued for a period of two years. (c) Every authorized Fair Price Shop dealer shall apply for renewal of authorization one month before expiry of validity duly remitting an amount of Rs.500/- as fee for renewal of authorization the fee prescribed for renewal of authorization and such application shall be disposed by the Appointing Authority before 31st of March. All the applications received for renewal of authorization beyond 28th/29th of February and authorizations for which applications were not received shall stand cancelled and the entire security deposit shall automatically be forfeited. All such 6 cases shall be treated as clear vacancies and all those vacancies shall be filled in duly following the guidelines within a month. Provided that the validity of the authorization shall not be deemed to have expired if an application for its renewal is pending before the appointing authority. 8. A bare perusal of the said Control Order makes it clear that the authorization issued under the said order shall be valid for a period of two years ending on 31st March, 2025 and shall be issued for a period of two years. The authorized dealer shall apply for renewal of authorization one month before the expiry of validity duly remitting an amount of Rs.500/- as fee prescribed for renewal of authorization and such application shall be disposed of by the appointing authority before 31st March. Applications for renewal of authorization received beyond 28th/29th February, and the authorizations for which applications were not received, shall stand cancelled and the entire security deposit shall automatically be forfeited. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made his application in the month of February as per the said clause and he has made it on 31.03.2025 i.e., beyond prescribed time. In the said circumstances, the petitioner’s authorization is deemed to have been cancelled. In the absence of any authorization, allowing the petitioner to run the fair price shop would be contrary to the Control Order, 2018. In the said view of the fact, no ground is made out warranting the interference of this Court. 7 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the authority shall conclude the enquiry within the stipulated period. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 25th February, 2026 JLV 8 81 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5437/2026 Date: 25th February, 2026 JLV