APHC010149662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7874/2025 Between: Sangara Srinivasarao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: This writ petition is filed questioning the orders dated 25.02.2025 passed by respondent no.4 vide Rc.No.I/451/2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0848021 situated in Valluru Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Heard Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the authorities, on the alleged ground that the petitioner’s brother is running the fair price shop in place of petitioner and that running the fair price shop in violation of the provisions of A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System, Control Order, 2018, without issuing any show cause notice, in a mechanical way, suspended the authorization of the petitioner without giving reasons in violation of the orders passed by this Court in K.Prabhavathi vs. State of A.P. 1 , therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that, as the petitioner committed certain irregularities in running fair price shop, the authorities have suspended the F.P.shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the procedure contemplated under law. He would further contend that the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner’s FP shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry. This Court vide orders dated 26.03.2025, suspended the 1 2020(6) ALD 209 impugned orders directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer until further orders. 7. 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 filing, keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System. 8. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that enquiry had not been completed so far. 9. 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 26.03.2025 shall continue.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J BRS