APHC010121012026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6747/2026 Between: 1. TURUMELLA BHARATHI, W/O VENKATA GIRIBABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC FAIR SHOP DEALER, F. P. SHOP. NO. 0750037, R/O D. NO. 16, GUDAVALLI VILLAGE CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REPALLE DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERUKUP 522309. 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, Order, or Directi a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents, more specifically the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc.No.774/2026 violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6747/2026 TURUMELLA BHARATHI, W/O VENKATA GIRIBABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC FAIR SHOP DEALER, F. P. SHOP. NO. 0750037, R/O D. NO. 16, GUDAVALLI VILLAGE CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522309. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR 522503. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REPALLE DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522265. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...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, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents, more specifically the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc.No.774/2026-C dated 25.02.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI TURUMELLA BHARATHI, W/O VENKATA GIRIBABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC FAIR SHOP DEALER, F. P. SHOP. NO. 0750037, R/O D. NO. NO. 0750037, R/O D. NO. 16, GUDAVALLI VILLAGE CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, ...PETITIONER ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REPALLE DIVISION, ALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - ...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 on, more particularly in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents, more specifically the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the C dated 25.02.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of 2 the Constitution of India, and contrary to the express provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Control Order, 2018 and consequently, set aside the same, by continuing the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop. No. 0750037, situated at Gudavalli Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District 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 to suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.774/2026-C dated:25.02.2026 by continuing the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop. No. 0750037, situated at Gudavalli Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District, and grant such other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer, Repalle Division in Rc.No.774/2026-C, dated 25.02.2026, whereby the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop No.0750037 situated at Gudavalli Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, was suspended solely on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, who has no authority under the Control Order, 2018, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri R.Sai Prakash Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Srinivas, 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 petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer for the subject shop. Earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.7288 of 2025 challenging the suspension order dated 08.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said Writ Petition by revoking the said suspension. He further submitted that respondent No.2 subsequently initiated fresh re-enquiry proceedings and again issued the impugned proceedings suspending the petitioner’s authorization solely on the basis of the enquiry conducted by respondent No.3-Tahsildar, dated 09.02.2026, which is contrary to the Control Order, 2018. The Control Order 2018 does not confer any power upon the Tahsildar to conduct such enquiry. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 4 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, fairly contended that the basing on the report of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to conduct an enquiry, but the Tahsildar cannot conduct independent enquiry and submitted that if this Court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct independent enquiry. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.2, without following the enquiry procedure contemplated under the Control Order 2018, suspended the authorization of the petitioner solely on the basis of the enquiry conducted by respondent No.3, who has no authority to conduct such an enquiry. 7. Clause 8(4) of the Control Order reads as follows: “ The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause. [Provided that the Appointing Authority may, order interim suspension of the authorization in writing pending enquiry in sub clause 4 of clause 8] [(2) Provided further that the appointing authority shall dispose the disciplinary case filed against the fair price shop dealers as early as 5 possible, preferably within a period of three (3) 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. The Control Order clearly contemplates that the appointing authority is vested with discretionary power to suspend or cancel an authorization—either on its own motion or upon a complaint in the public interest, subject to conducting a necessary enquiry and recording reasons in writing; further, it may order interim suspension pending enquiry, and is required to dispose of disciplinary proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months. 9. If any disciplinary enquiry has been initiated for cancellation of authorization of Fair Price shop, the Revenue Divisional Officer has power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry without issuing show cause notice by virtue of Clause (h) of the guidelines in C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP- CCS dated 28.09.2015 10. The Control Order does not confer independent authority on the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry leading directly to suspension. The Tahsildar can utmost recommend for disciplinary action, if found any irregularities during inspection, but cannot conduct independent enquiry by examining the cardholders and form opinion and send the enquiry report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The examining of cardholders/complainants or the inspecting official vests with the Revenue Divisional Officer only. 6 11. The Control Order contemplates that the competent authority must independently satisfy itself about any alleged irregularities or misconduct before taking disciplinary action. A preliminary report or enquiry conducted by a subordinate officer, such as the Tahsildar, can at best be used for administrative assistance, but cannot form the sole basis for suspension. 12. Perusal of the order impugned shows that the suspension order has been passed by relying exclusively on the Tahsildar’s enquiry report, where Tahsildar has examined the cardholders based on the complaints received, who has no statutory authority to conduct such enquiry. The impugned order further shows that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended without specifying the period of suspension. Hence, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, at the admission stage itself, with the following direction. “The respondent authorities concerned shall conclude the enquiry in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed not to from any opinion on the enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar. He shall conduct an independent enquiry as contemplated under Control Order 2018 and in terms of the judgment laid down in Writ Appeal No.139 of 2025. Till then, the petitioner shall continue as a Fair Price Shop dealer to the subject shop.” 7 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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 11.03.2026 MP 8 230 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.6747 of 2026 11.03.2026 MP