1 APHC010457712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23988/2025 Between: Gosangi Venkata Lakshmi, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJU GUBBALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: This writ petition is filed questioning the orders dated 19.11.2020 passed by respondent no.4 vide Ref.No.B2/1805/2020 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0432030, Z.Medapadu Village, Mandapeta Mandal, Dr.B.R.Amedkar Konaseema District in the name of her nominee, Smt.P.Veeraveni. 2. Heard Sri Raju Gubbala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 2 3. Learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioner is the permanent dealer of the fair price shop No.0432030 and Smt. P.Veeraveni is her nominee. He further submitted that, the authorities issued show cause notice to the nominee of the petitioner calling for explanation on the alleged grounds of variations in the ground stock found during inspection of the FP shop and booked a 6(A) case against the petitioner’s nominee and issued impugned order (suspension of authorization) dated 19.11.2020 pending enquiry to the petitioner’s nominee, without even applying mind. He further submitted that, upon the conclusion of the said 6(A) proceedings, the entire seized stock was confiscated to the Government and though the petitioner has paid fine of Rs.56,773/- to the Government, the authorization was not restored. He further submitted that, without there being any suspension or cancellation of petitioner’s authorization over the subject fair price shop, the authorities are not permitting her to draw the essential commodities for distribution and appointed the 6th respondent as temporary dealer. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on judgment in Oleti Tirupathamma Vs District Supply Officer 1and prayed to set aside the impugned suspension order. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for civil supplies while justifying the orders of the respondent authorities contended that, when the suspension orders were not passed against the petitioner, she need not question the 1 2002(1) ALD 577 3 same, moreover, instead of filing an appeal before the Collector (Civil Supplies), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. A perusal of the record would indicate that the impugned suspension order was issued in the name of Smt.P.Veeraveni, who is the nominee of the petitioner. It is very surprising to see as to how the RDO has issued the suspension order in the name of the petitioner’s nominee and on this count itself, the impugned order has to be set aside. Further, without there being suspension or cancellation of petitioner’s authorization, the authorities cannot stop supplying of essential commodities to the petitioner and appoint a temporary dealer. In Oleti Tirupathamma (supra 1), this Court has categorically held that if the licensing authority themselves upon application of mind come to the conclusion that the irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant suspension of his license, it may do so. But, the authority without taking recourse to the said action, cannot refuse to supply the essential commodities. In the event, an order of suspension of license is passed, the authorities will have to make an alternative arrangement. But in a case of this nature, the cardholders would be worst sufferers inasmuch their essential commodities would not be supplied to them at all. 4 7. However, upon the conclusion of the 6(A) case, the petitioner has paid penalty to the government and even on this ground, the authorization of the fair price shop has to be restored to the petitioner. Though a personal notice was sent to the 6th respondent, it was returned with an endorsement ‘refused’ which can be termed as a deemed service and the 6th respondent did not put up her appearance. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the firm opinion that, the order impugned is ex-facie illegal, unsustainable and liable to set aside. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the impugned order of suspension dated 19.11.2020 is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS