1 APHC010134772025 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: 6861/2025 Between: P Venkata Ramana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO 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.E/302/2025 dated 27.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0805024 in Polepalli village, Donakonda mandal, Prakasam district, was suspended without following the procedure as contemplated under A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (control) order, 2018. 2 2. Heard Miss M.Kalyani, 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 report of the Food Inspector, Podili, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.01.2025 (was served to petitioner on 10.03.2025) on the alleged ground of irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders and sought explanation within 7days. She further submitted that, on the very same day of issuance of show cause notice, without waiting for the explanation, without conducting any enquiry, the 3rd respondent has issued impugned order i.e., on 27.01.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop for indefinite period even without hearing the petitioner. She further submitted that, this court, by way of interim order dated 18.03.2025, has protected the interest of the petitioner which was extended until further orders and by virtue of the said interim orders, the petitioner is still running the fair price shop. She further submitted that, although a year passed, the authorities have not concluded the enquiry nor filed any counter, 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 3rd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He 3 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. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 27.01.2025 would indicate that the authorities have issued show cause notice to the petitioner fixing 7 days to submit the explanation and also indicate that an opportunity of personal hearing is also scheduled to be provided on 04.02.2025 @ 11:00 AM. Now the contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent authorities, without waiting for explanation, without conducting an enquiry, issued the impugned order on the very same day when the show cause notice was issued i.e., 27.01.2025 and thereby suspended the petitioner’s authorisation for subject fair price shop for indefinite period. No doubt, the RDO has power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry by giving cogent reasons but the authorities ought to have waited for explanation to be submitted by the petitioner. 7. 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 said 4 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 18.03.2025 shall continue.” Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS