APHC010145092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7411/2025 Between: N.b.sanjeeva Rayudu ...PETITIONER AND 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.No.CS/128/2025 dated 03.02.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1339012 situated in Godiganur Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District, was suspended without assigning any reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. 2. Heard Sri MMM.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and 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, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.01.2025 on the alleged ground of variation of stocks. He further submitted that, to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted an explanation dated 30.01.2025 to the respondent authorities, however, without considering the same and conducting any enquiry, the 3rd respondent has issued impugned order dated 03.02.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for fair price shop No. 1339012 for period of 90 days, even without hearing the petitioner. He further submitted that, this court, by way of interim order dated 24.03.2025, has protected the interest of the petitioner. He 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 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. 1339012 situated in Godiganur Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District. On the alleged ground of variation of stocks, a show cause notice dated 22.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner asking to submit explanation by framing charges and the petitioner has submitted explanation dated 30.01.2025. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondent authorities, without considering the same and without conducting an enquiry, issued the impugned order and thereby suspended the petitioner’s dealership for subject fair price shop for period of ninety(90) days. 9. However, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State 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 circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondent authority concerned is directed to conclude the enquiry within stipulated period as per the Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Till then, interim suspension of the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 shall continue.” Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS