1 APHC010124282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6899/2026 Between: 1. Smt. Posipogu Terejamma, w/o Nageswara rao, aged about 50 years, occ:Fair Shop dealer, F.P.Shop No. 0708003, R/o D.No. 8-18/a, Dodleru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur district - 522410. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur district - 522503. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattenapalli Division, Guntur District - 522403. 3. The Tahsildar, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District – 522410. ...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 an appropriate 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. 136/2025-C dated Nil.02.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and as being contrary to the express provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Control Order, 2018 and consequently to set aside the same and continue the petitioner as Fair Price 2 Shop Dealer for Shop No. 0708003 situated at Dodleru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District and to pass such 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc. No. 136/2025-C dated Nil.02.2026, and consequently permit the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 0708003 situated at Dodleru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District, and to grant such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS 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.136/2025-C dated Nil.02.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0708003 in Dodleru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Palnadu District was suspended, pending enquiry. 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, based on the inspection report, on the alleged ground of variations in the stocks, the 2nd respondent (RDO) has issued a show cause 3 notice to the petitioner vide File No.REV02-GM/349/2026-SA(J)-RDO-SAP- PLND dated 19.02.2026 inviting explanation from the petitioner as to why her authorization should not be suspended, to which the petitioner has submitted her detailed explanation on 26.02.2026. He further submitted that, without considering the said explanation, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned order dated Nil.02.2026 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop No.0708003 for indefinite period, pending enquiry. He further submitted that, having been issued show cause notice for suspension, passing impugned order suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry is incomprehensible. He further submitted that, impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside, else, it would affect the rights of the petitioner. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 2nd respondent submitted that, as the petitioner has committed irregularities, in order to protect the interest of the cardholders, the authorities have rightly suspended the petitioner’s authorization, as such, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4 6. In this regard, 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. 7. Clause (h) of the said guidelines is appropriate for the present case and for quick reference, the same is extracted hereunder: “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.” 8. 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. 9. Generally, a show cause notice shall be issued asking why authorization should not be cancelled, meanwhile, suspension proceedings will be issued pending enquiry regarding cancellation. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, show cause notice was issued inviting explanation as to why her authorization should not be ‘suspended’ and the impugned order was passed suspending authorization pending enquiry. It is very surprising to see as to how the authorities have issued such a show cause notice, when no show cause notice is required for suspension. Moreover, the show cause notice is issued for suspension and the impugned 5 order is passed for suspension, further it was added ‘pending enquiry’. When show cause notice is only for suspension, what remains for enquiry is not explained properly by the respondents. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside even without inviting counter since the respondent cannot improvise their case by filing a counter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order vide Rc.No.136/2025-C dated Nil.02.2026. However, the authorities are not precluded from taking steps in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS