1 APHC010224982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11506/2026 Between: 1. Challa Kasi Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy, aged 67 years, Occ. Fair price Shop Dealer, R/o Chatragaddapadu village, Vinukonda mandal, Palnadu District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur district-522238 2. The District Collector, Palnadu District, Narasaraopet-522601 3. The Joint Collector, Palnadu District, Narasaraopet-522601 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District-522601 5. The Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District-522647 6. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Vinukonda, Palnadu District-522647 ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.l02/2025-G dated 15-04-2026 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide and pass 2 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 impugned order Rc.No.l02/2025-G dated 15-04-2026 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Reserved on: 28.04.2026 Pronounced on: 08.05.2026 Uploaded on: 08.05.2026 The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings vide Rc.No.102/2025-G dated 15.04.2026 issued by the RDO- 4th respondent wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0743045 in Chatragaddapadu Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District was suspended, pending enquiry. 2. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, 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, earlier when the authorities have suspended the petitioner’s authorization based on the report of Civil Supplies Deputy 3 Tahsildar, the petitioner had filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.11957/2025 wherein an interim order dated 05.05.2025 was granted by this court and the said writ petition was disposed of on 31.01.2026 directing the authorities to conclude the enquiry at the earliest and till conclusion of the enquiry the interim order shall continue. He further submitted that, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, has once again visited the subject shop and found variation of stock. He further submitted that, based on the report of Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar dated 06.04.2026, on the alleged ground of variations in the stocks, the 4th respondent (RDO) has issued impugned order dated 15.04.2026 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for indefinite period, pending enquiry. He further submitted that, the petitioner’s authorization was renewed upto 31.03.2026 and he applied for renewal by paying necessary fee on 23.03.2026 but in the impugned suspension order, it was stated that the petitioner’s authorization was expired on 27.12.2024 and it not renewed. He further submitted that, though the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 04.04.2026, without considering the same and without issuing a show cause, the RDO has straight away passed the impugned suspension order. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly 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 4th respondent submitted that, as the authorities have found variations in the stocks, in order to protect the interest of the cardholders, the authorities have rightly suspended the petitioner’s 4 authorization. He further submitted that, by virtue of Clause (h) in C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015, no show cause notice is required to be issued before suspension, pending enquiry. As such, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition, being meritless. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer is suspended for indefinite period, pending enquiry. The same has been questioned on the ground that, the show cause notice was not issued by the authorities while suspending the authorization. 7. 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. 8. 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.” 5 9. As per the above said guidelines framed in the circular, even without issuing any show cause notice, the appointing authority can suspend the dealership of a dealer, pending enquiry. Therefore, the question of issuing show cause notice does not arise. The intention to bring such circular is to protect the interest of the cardholders, by recording the reasons for such suspension. 10. Generally the purpose of the suspension of authorization is to prevent the fair shop dealer from distributing the commodities and to avoid further irregularities being meted out by the dealer, pending enquiry of the alleged irregularities. In the present case, since the authorities are alleging variation in the stock, unless a detailed enquiry is gone into, it may not be possible for the authorities to find out whether the dealer is guilty of the alleged irregularities. 11. No doubt, the authorization cannot be suspended for an indefinite period. However, 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 (03) months, keeping in view the convenience of the cardholders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distributed System. Therefore, the authorities have to complete the enquiry within the time prescribed under the above clause and if enquiry is not concluded within time, the petitioner can approach 6 the authorities at first instance and if needed, this court, seeking revocation of suspension order. 12. In view of the above said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that, the contention advanced by the petitioner that show cause was not issued while passing impugned suspension order is wholly unsustainable and the impugned suspension order needs no interference of this court and writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS