APHC010232382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11957/2025 Between: 1. CHALLA KASI REDDY, S/O KOTI REDDY, AGED 66 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 SUPPLIED DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VINUKONDA 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order Rc.No.l02/2024-G dated 06-02-2025 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.102/2024-G dated 06- 02-2025 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: ORDER: Questioning the proceedings dated 06.02.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.102/2024-G suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0743045, Chatragaddapadu Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri S.Sri Harsha, learned counsel representing Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the authorities, alleging variations in the fortified rice found during inspection conducted on 18.01.2025 of the Fair Price shop, issued show cause notice, for which the petitioner submitted explanation, however, the authorities, without considering the 3 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 found variation in fortified rice, suspended the 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 Fair Price shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry. This Court vide orders dated 05.05.2025, suspended the impugned orders directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer. 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 (03) months from 1 2020(6) ALD 209 4 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, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The authorities shall conclude the enquiry at an earliest. Till conclusion of enquiry, the interim orders passed by this Court on 05.05.2025 shall continue.” 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 31st January, 2026 RKS