1 APHC010231972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11954/2025 Between: 1. GOPU VEERAIAH, S/O. ANJANEYULU, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. GOPUVARIPALEM VILLAGE, IPURU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, IPURU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...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 toleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order Rc.No.334/2024-G dated 04-03-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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.334/2024-G dated 04-03-2025 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 The Court made the following: 3 ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the orders dated 04.03.2025 passed by respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.334/2024-G suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0741028, Gopuvaripalem Village, Ipuru Mandal. 2. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the authorities alleging diversion of stocks into black market and failed to distribute the Essential Commodities to the card holders, issued show cause notice calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, however, the authorities, without considering the explanation, 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 authorities have found that the petitioner failed to distribute the stocks to the card holders 1. 2020(6) ALD 209 4 through MDU operator properly and kept the stocks in the shop for diversion into black market, 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 05.05.2025, suspended the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.2. 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: 5 “The authorities shall conclude the enquiry at an earliest. Till conclusion of enquiry, the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 04.03.2025 shall stand suspended.” 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 22.01.2026 TM/SCS 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11954/2025 Date:- 22.01.2026 TM/SCS