APHC010375162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19181/2025 Between: 1. S JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. S SIVA PRASAD, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER SHOP NO 1182022, SRIRAM NAGAR, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU DIVISION, Y.S.R DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PRODDATUR MANDAL, Y.S.R 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref. No. B/2667/2025, dated 21.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 in cancelling the 2 authorization and imposing a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- as arbitrary and illegal, irrational, without any basis, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings in Ref No. B/2667/2025, dated 21.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 proceedings in Ref. No. B/2667/2025, dated 21.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 and consequently continue me as the Fair price shop dealer, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the proceedings vide Ref.No.B/2667/2025 dated 21.04.2025, issued by the 3rdrespondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization imposing a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/-, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioner is a permanent fair price shop dealer in respect of fair price shop No.1182022 located at Sriram Nagar, Proddatur Mandal, Y.S.R. District, and ever since she is discharging her duties by supplying essential commodities to the utmost satisfaction of the cardholders and the officials. While so, alleging variations in the ground balance of commodities found during inspection of the Fair Price shop, the Deputy Tahsildar sent a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate action under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. He further submitted that basing on the very same report of the Tahsildar, initially when the RDO had suspended the authorization of the petitioner, she filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.30295 of 2024 and this Court, disposed of the same by order dated 04.03.2025 setting aside the impugned suspension order therein on the ground that the authorities 4 have no right to suspend the authorization by taking into consideration the 6A report. He further submitted that despite such direction, the RDO proceeded enquiry by relying on the 6A report of the Tahsildar and thereby passed the orders impugned cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. He further submitted that as per guidelines for dealing with the cases of alleged irregularities by the Fair Price Shop Dealers, a circular dated 30.09.2015 has been issued wherein a separate report has to be submitted to the authorization issuing authority to initiate disciplinary action against the dealer concerned as the appointing authority can initiate disciplinary action under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Control)Order, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as Control Order, 2018) for suspension/cancellation of authorization and for forfeiture of security deposit. Despite clear circular in that regard, the authority concerned, based its decision on the 6A report and suspended the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the said order is unsustainable both on facts and law and liable to be set aside at admission stage even without inviting any counter, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while justifying the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural 5 irregularity while passing the orders impugned. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that in any event, if this Court inclines to interfere with the orders impugned, a liberty may be given to the authorities to conduct fresh enquiry. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a permanent fair price shop dealer for subject fair price shop. A show cause notice has been issued asking the petitioner to submit an explanation on the irregularities found during inspection and the petitioner submitted her explanation. Earlier, when the authorities have suspended petitioner’s authorization vide orders dated 28.10.2024 relying on the 6A report of the Tahsildar, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30295 of 2024 and this Court has set aside the same duly observing that as per Section 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018, a separate report has to be submitted and in the absence of the same, order passed based on the 6A report of Essential Commodities Act is impermissible by its order dated 04.03.2025. Now the contention of the petitioner is that on the very same 6A report of the Tahsildar dated 07.10.2024, the RDO, Jammalamadugu has proceeded with the enquiry and passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioners authorization. 7. In this regard, Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is extracted hereunder for quick reference: 6 The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to the Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed (*) <before the appointing authority as proposed=for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions of authorisation; and The Inspecting authorities as and when found misuse /diversion of scheduled Commodities meant for Targeted Public Distribution System or other schemes, shall report to the authorization issuing authority for initiation of disciplinary action against the Mobile Dispensing Unit Operator and the stocks available in the Mobile Dispensing Unit shall be handed over to the Fair Price Shop dealer concerned for distribution under Targeted Public Distribution System. Pending enquiry of the disciplinary case, by ordering interim suspension of the authorization issued, the authorization issuing authority shall ensure that scheduled commodities should be distributed as per schedule. The authorization issuing authority shall report to the District Collector to take action against Mobile Dispensing Unit operator. 8. By virtue of the control order and the circular, a separate report has to be submitted to the appointing authority RDO for initiating any disciplinary action against the dealer. 9. The authority passed order impugned basing its decision by relying on the 6A report of the Tahsildar dated 07.10.2024. In the said view of the fact, the order impugned is unsustainable. 10. In similar set of facts, a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 has held that to the said effect that in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order passed cannot be sustained and has to be set aside declaring the same as illegal and contrary to clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. 7 11. In view of the control order and judgement referred supra, the order impugned is wholly unsustainable and illegal and liable to be set aside. However, the authorities are not precluded to proceed with the enquiry if so desired. 12. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of interim order dated 28.07.2025 the petitioner is continuing as dealer, as such, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer however subject to outcome of the enquiry. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is not having renewal of his authorization. This Court is not inclined to go into those aspects, however, the authorities are not precluded to take steps in that regard in accordance with law. 14. 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: 03rd March, 2026 RKS