APHC010564592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36416/2025 Between: 1. M NARASAPPA, S/O. DASAPPA, AGED 75 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP. NO. 1259050, R/O. HARESAMUDRAM VILLAGE, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY. ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR 2 DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning respondent in issuing Impugned proceedings the action of the 4th Rc.No.2854/2025/C dated 10.12.2025 by Suspended for a period of 90 days to the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No. 1259050, Haresamudram Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set- aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No. 1259050, Haresamudram Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District 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 pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's F.P Shop No. 1259050, Haresamudram Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings of 4th respondent vide Rc.No.2854/2025/C dated 10.12.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 1. KASHAPOGU SURESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning respondent in issuing Impugned proceedings the action of the 4th Rc.No.2854/2025/C dated 10.12.2025 by Suspended for a period of 90 days to the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No. 1259050, Haresamudram Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No.1259050, Haresamudram Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District...” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for shop No.1259050 by the 4th respondent in the year 2012, situated at Haresamudram Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District erstwhile Anantapur District. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. 3. While so, on 06.10.2025, the 5th respondent instructed the petitioner not to deposit the cheque for issuance of essential commodities and orally informed the petitioner that he should not issue commodities for the next month. When the petitioner 5 approached the 4th respondent and requested to continue the supply of essential commodities by receiving the cheque, the 5th respondent refused, stating that due to recent changes in the Government, there were local political pressures, and therefore, commodities could not be issued to the petitioner. 4. While the matter stood thus, on 08.10.2025, the staff of the 5th respondent, namely the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, VRO, and VRI, visited the Fair Price Shop at about 12:30 PM and conducted an inspection. During the inspection, they allegedly found a shortage of 368.5 kgs of fortified rice (variation of – 5.32%), shortage of 25 half-kgs packets (variation of –5.00%), and 102 kgs of jowar (variation of +12.00%). Accordingly, the inspecting officials seized the available stock and handed over the same to the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar after conducting a panchanama in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03.11.2025, framing two charges against the petitioner and calling for an explanation within seven (7) days from the date of issuance of the notice. Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a representation on 11.11.2025, stating that his health condition 6 was not well and requesting some more time to submit his explanation. 5. The grievance of the present writ petition is that the 4th respondent, even without waiting for the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner as requested by him, has straight away suspended the petitioner’s authorization for a period of 90 days vide impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2025. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 7. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is evident that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the 4th respondent on 03.11.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting to grant a week’s time for submission of explanation for the charges alleged on him. But however, the 4th respondent having waited for a period of one month passed impugned proceedings on 10.12.2025 placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension for a period of 90 days which is neither illegal or arbitrary. 7 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of 90 days as mentioned in the impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2025. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 02.01.2026 LSP