APHC010121612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6116/2025 Between: 1. GOTTIMUKKALA PRASAD, S/O YOGAIAH AGE 41 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0805025, PADAMARA LAKSHMI PURAM VILLAGE DONAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DIST., AT ONGOLE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI DIVISION, PRAKASAM DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DONAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 topleased 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.E/341/2025 dt 25-2-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of the FP Shop No.0805025, Padamara Lakshmi Puram Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist.. without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution RC,J W.P No.6116 of 2025 2 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 25-2-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, 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 pleased Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.E/341/2025 dt:25-2-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.0805025, Padamara Lakshmi Puram Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam 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 RC,J W.P No.6116 of 2025 3 The Court made the following Order: Questioning the proceedings dated 25.02.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.E/341/2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0805025, Padamara Lakshmi Puram Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam 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 for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, after lapse of three months time from the date of panchanama, a show cause notice dated 25.02.2025 has been issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent alleging that there is variation of excess 522 kgs of fortified rice, which is beyond the permissible limit, called for the explanation from the petitioner within a period of seven (07) days from the receipt of the said notice and was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 05.03.2025. However, the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 (i.e., on the very same day on which the show cause notice was issued) was passed without waiting for the period mentioned in the show cause notice or till the scheduled date of personal hearing, which itself shows that the authorities have predetermined the case against the petitioner. He further submitted that if such order is allowed to subsist, it not only affects the rights RC,J W.P No.6116 of 2025 4 of the petitioner, but his livelihood would also be affected, as such, filed the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity while passing the orders impugned. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against the orders passed, the appeal lies to the Collector by virtue of Control Order, 2018. The writ petition is meritless, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the order impugned is ex facie illegal and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, no appeal needs to be filed and writ petition can be entertained. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner’s fair price shop dealership authorization was suspended, pending enquiry. This Court vide orders dated 11.03.2025, suspended the impugned orders. 8. 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 (3) months from the date of RC,J W.P No.6116 of 2025 5 filing, keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System. 9. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that enquiry had not been completed so far. 10. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction: “The authorities shall conclude the enquiry at an earliest. Till conclusion of enquiry, the interim orders passed by this Court on 11.03.2025 shall continue”. 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:30.01.2026 Ksj