1 APHC010110352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5730/2025 Between: Devisetty Rama Kotaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings vide Rc.No.1844/2024-G dated 18.10.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent (RDO) wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0721031 situated in Kanumalacheruvu Village, was suspended without conducting enquiry and without following the procedure as contemplated under A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (control) order, 2018. 2 2. Heard Sri Sri Sai Harsha, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, based on the false report of Deputy Tahsildar (C.S.), a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner 15.10.2024 on the alleged ground of irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. He further submitted that, to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 18.10.2024 but the 2nd respondent(RDO), however, without considering the said explanation and without conducting any enquiry, has issued impugned order dated 18.10.2024 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop pending disposal of the 6-A case before the Joint collector. He further submitted that, even the impugned order was not communicated to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent has given a Xerox copy of the impugned order after much persuasion. He further submitted that, this court, by way of interim order dated 07.03.2025, has protected the interest of the petitioner, which was extended until further orders and by virtue of the said interim orders, the petitioner is running the fair price shop. As such prayed to dispose of the writ petition by treating the interim order as final order. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 2nd respondent submitted that there 3 is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that, in order to protect the interest of the cardholder, the impugned order has been issued and further submitted that, in the event if this court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the authority concerned to conclude the enquiry in stipulated period in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 0721031 situated in Kanumalacheruvu Village. On the alleged ground of irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, a show cause notice dated 15.10.2024 was issued to the petitioner asking to submit explanation by framing charges and the petitioner has submitted explanation on 18.10.2024. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent authorities, without considering the said explanation and without conducting an enquiry, issued the impugned order 18.10.2024 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop pending disposal of the 6-A case before the Joint collector. 7. However, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, stipulates that the enquiry has to be conducted preferably within a period of three (03) months. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, so far, no enquiry was conducted. In view of the 4 said circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The authorities shall conclude the enquiry at the earliest. Till conclusion of the enquiry by the authorities, the interim order passed by this court on 07.03.2025 shall continue.” Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS