APHC010097542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. KOPPULA ESWARAIAH, S/O NARASAIAH LATE AGE 78 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0837016, BADINENIPALLI VILLAGE KONNAROLE MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DIST. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, MARKAPURAM DIST., AT MAKRAPUR. 518502 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR DIVISION, MARKAPURAM DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOMAROLE MANDAL, M 523373 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 a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the peti No.0837016, Badinenipalli Village Komarole Mandal, Markapuram Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5531/2026 KOPPULA ESWARAIAH, S/O NARASAIAH LATE AGE 78 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0837016, BADINENIPALLI VILLAGE KONNAROLE MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. THE COLLECTOR CS, MARKAPURAM DIST., AT MAKRAPUR. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR DIVISION, MARKAPURAM DIST.-518502 THE TAHSILDAR, KOMAROLE MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DIST. ...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 a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the petitioner's authorization in respect of the F.P Shop No.0837016, Badinenipalli Village Komarole Mandal, Markapuram Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KOPPULA ESWARAIAH, S/O NARASAIAH LATE AGE 78 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0837016, BADINENIPALLI VILLAGE KONNAROLE MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DIST.-523373 ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE COLLECTOR CS, MARKAPURAM DIST., AT MAKRAPUR.- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR DIVISION, ARKAPURAM DIST.- ...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 a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the tioner's authorization in respect of the F.P Shop No.0837016, Badinenipalli Village Komarole Mandal, Markapuram Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted 2 Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 29-l-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 to suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.C/676/2025 dt:29-l-2026 in respect of the F.P Shop No.0837016, Badinenipalli Village Komarole Mandal, Markapuram 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 3 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, without following the procedure contemplated under AP State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, without conducting any independent enquiry and without considering his explanation, passed the order vide proceedings in Rc.C/676/2025 suspending his authorization in respect of the Fair Price shop bearing No.0837016, Badinenipalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Markapuram District. 2. Heard Sri Sk.Rafi, learned counsel, representing Sri M.M.M.Srinivasarao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the respondent authorities, alleging variations between the ground stock and the book balance, issued a show cause notice dated 02.12.2025 to the petitioner. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 05.12.2025, the authorities, without considering the same, in a mechanical way, suspended the authorization of the petitioner without assigning any reasons. Hence, the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. 4 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension, contending that as the authorities found irregularities in running the Fair Price shop, suspended the authorization of the petitioner, pending enquiry in exercise of the powers conferred by provisions under Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018 vide G.O.Ms.NO.11, CA F & CS (CS.I) Department, dated 09.09.2020. He further contended that 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 petitioner’s Fair Price shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension was passed without following the procedure contemplated under the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and without considering the explanation submitted by him. However, it is not in dispute that a show cause notice dated 02.12.2025 was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that variations were found between the ground stock and the book balance in the Fair Price Shop run by the petitioner. 7. It is the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader that upon inspection, the authorities found certain irregularities in running the Fair Price 5 Shop and therefore, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending final enquiry in exercise of the powers conferred by provisions under Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018 vide G.O.Ms.No.11, CA F & CS (CS.I) Department, dated 09.09.2020. 8. There are certain guidelines framed for dealing the cases on alleged grounds of irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealers vide C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015. The said guidelines have been framed by duly taking into consideration the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch. 9. Clause (h) of the said guidelines is extracted hereunder for quick reference: “h. The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power.” As per the above said guidelines framed in the circular, without issuing any show cause notice, the appointing authority can suspend the dealership of a dealer, pending enquiry, to protect the interest of the cardholders, by recording the reasons for such suspension. 10. 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. If a detailed enquiry is made, there remains nothing 6 for conducting disciplinary or main enquiry. 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 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. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 26.02.2026 MP 7 174 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.5531 of 2026 26.02.2026 MP