APHC010247552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13563/2026 Between: 1. ALLU SIMHACHALAM, S/O LATE YERRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0129003, RESIDENT OF SANTABOMMALI SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP., BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPT. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 532001. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAULAM, 532001. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532201. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SANTHABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532195. 6. SMT TANGI ANNAPURNA, REGULAR DEALER F.P SHOP NO.0129004, SANTHABOMMALI 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13563/2026 ALLU SIMHACHALAM, S/O LATE YERRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0129003, RESIDENT OF SANTABOMMALI-LLL SANTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP., BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS I) DEPT. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522238.T THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM THE TAHSILDAR, SANTHABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM SMT TANGI ANNAPURNA, REGULAR DEALER F.P SHOP NO.0129004, SANTHABOMMALI VILLAGE AND MANDAL RCJ W.P.No.13563 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ALLU SIMHACHALAM, S/O LATE YERRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0129003, LLL SANTABOMMALI MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS I) DEPT. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM THE TAHSILDAR, SANTHABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM SMT TANGI ANNAPURNA, REGULAR DEALER F.P SHOP VILLAGE AND MANDAL -532195, RCJ W.P.No.13563 of 2026 2 SRIKAKKULAM DISTRICT, APPOINTED ON TEMPORARY BASIS F.P SHOP NO.0129003., ...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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, the 4th Respondent herein, in Rc.No.713/2025/F dt. 13.04.2026, wherein kept under suspension of the petitioners authorization, without conducting any proper enquiry, as per the orders passed in W.P.No. 17768/2025, dt.30.01.2026, as illegal arbitrary, and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, and set aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in Shop No.0129003 of Santhabommali-lll village, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District, and pass 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 pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to distribute the same to the respective card holders under Public Distribution System, in Shop No.0129003, of Santhabommali-lll village, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District, by suspending the operation of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, the 4th respondent, vide proceedings in Rc.No.713/2025/F dt. 13.04.2026, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: RCJ W.P.No.13563 of 2026 3 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders dated 13.04.2026 passed by respondent no.4 vide Rc.No.713/2025/F suspending the petitioner’s authorization, without conducting any proper enquiry as per orders dated 30.01.2026 passed in W.P.No.17768 of 2025. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has been appointed as F.P. shop dealer on permanent basis in the year 2006 and his authorization is being renewed from time to time and the same stood renewed upto 31.3.2027. On 02.06.2026, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department and other officials visited the shop of the petitioner and alleging variation of stocks issued show cause notice dated 06.06.2025, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 13.06.2025 and thereafter without considering the explanation the Revenue Divisional Officer suspended the F.P.shop authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 30.06.2025. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.17768 of 2025 and this Court vide orders dated 16.07.2025 granted interim suspension of the impugned order and thereafter the said writ petition was disposed of on 30.01.2026,directing the authorities to conclude the enquiry at an earliest and till conclusion of enquiry, the interim orders RCJ W.P.No.13563 of 2026 4 dated 16.07.2025 shall remain in force. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 07.04.2026, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice to the petitioner directing him to attend the office along with written explanation and all relevant documentary evidence and accordingly written explanation was submitted, however, without considering the explanation and without conducting any enquiry and without examining the witnesses as directed by this Court, suspended the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 13.04.2026. 4. Heard Sri M.Gnaneswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Sri M.Gnaneswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry and without examining any witnesses as directed by this Court vide orders passed in W.P.No.17768 of 2025, the respondent no.4 suspended the authorization of the petitioner and therefore there is patent illegality and procedural irregularity in passing the suspension orders and hence they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. RCJ W.P.No.13563 of 2026 5 6. Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would contend that as the authorities found variation in stocks, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended in order to protect interest of the cardholders and to ensure free and fair final enquiry into the matter. He would further contend that as per Clause (h) of C.C.Memo. No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS, dated 28.09.2015, there is no need for issuance of show cause notice before suspending authorization and hence consideration of the explanation submitted to the show-cause notice is not all necessary, and therefore, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioner’s FP shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry. 9. The primary purpose of suspending a Fair Price Shop dealer pending a final inquiry is to protect public interest, prevent further irregularities, and ensure an unbiased investigation. It is a temporary, precautionary measure rather than a final punishment. 10. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch, certain guidelines were framed for dealing the cases on the RCJ W.P.No.13563 of 2026 6 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 and clause (h) of the said guidelines states that 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. 11. In view of the above clause the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is patent illegality in passing suspension orders since his explanation was not considered is untenable and the same is hereby rejected. 12. The next ground on which the suspension orders was attacked is that no enquiry was conducted as directed by this Court vide orders passed in W.P.No.17768 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the authorities to conclude the enquiry at an earliest. The enquiry stated therein refers to the final enquiry to formally investigate alleged irregularities committed by a dealer, aiming to either substantiate the charges for dismissal or exonerate/acquit the dealer based on evidence, however the learned counsel for the petitioner misinterpreted it as an enquiry before suspending the authorization. Therefore, the next ground too fails. 13. No doubt, the authorization cannot be suspended for an indefinite period. Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution RCJ W.P.No.13563 of 2026 7 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. Therefore, the authorities have to complete the enquiry within the time prescribed under the above clause and if enquiry is not concluded within the time, the petitioner can approach the authorities by preferring appeal in the first instance and thereafter this court, if necessity arises, this Court seeking revocation of suspension order. 14. In view of the above, since the two grounds raised for seeking suspension of the authorization of the petition are held to be untenable and unsustainable, the writ petition being devoid of merits bound to fail. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 7th May, 2026. RR