1 APHC010682882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35294/2025 Between: P Venkamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. AYESHA AZMA S The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings vide Rc.No.3451/2025-C dated 09.12.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent wherein the petitioner‟s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0715062 in Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District was suspended without conducting enquiry. 2 2. Heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents and Smt Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, based on the false report of tahsildar (3rd respondent) a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.11.2024 on the alleged ground of variations in the stocks. He further submitted that, to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation dated 15.11.2024 to the respondent authorities, however, without conducting any enquiry, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned order dated 09.12.2025 suspending the petitioner‟s authorization for fair price shop No. 0715062 for 90 days period even without hearing the petitioner. He further submitted that if the said impugned suspension order is allowed to subsist, it would affect the rights of the petitioner. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 2nd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that, the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal before the District Collector, filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and 3 liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against the suspension orders, there is no appeal provision envisaged under the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, (hereinafter referred to as „Control Order, 2018‟) and the parties should not be left remediless, as such, the writ petition is maintainable. Further, issuing the impugned order, suspending the petitioner‟s authorization without conducting any enquiry, is unjustifiable and contrary to principles of natural justice, and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the same. 6. Smt Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the respondent authority has rightly issued the impugned order suspending the petitioner‟s authorization, as such the same needs no interference of this Court and writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.0715062 in Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. Based on the report of the tahsildar, a show cause notice dated 06.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner asking to submit explanation by framing charges. To the said 4 show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 15.11.2024, however, the respondent authorities, without conducting an enquiry, issued the impugned order and thereby suspended the petitioner‟s dealership for subject fair price shop. 9. The said impugned proceedings/order has been questioned solely on the ground of political vengeance and in order to allot the dealership to some third parties by cancelling the petitioner‟s authorization without even conducting enquiry. The other ground that has been raised by the petitioner is that the order impugned was issued without issuing cogent reasons. 10. In the above said background, Clause 24 of Control Order, 2018 is relevant which deals with appeals, which reads as follows: “24. Appeal Fair Price Shops: a. The Collector (Civil Supplies) of the districts in the State shall act an appellate authority for exercising the powers conferred upon and discharging the functions assigned to him/her under this Order. Provided that appeal pending before the appellate authority appointed under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 shall be disposed of by such authority as if this Order had not been made; b. Any fair price shop dealer aggrieved by an order of the appointing authority concerned denying het issue or renewal of authorization (License) to fair price shop dealer or cancellation of the authoritzation (License) may appeal to [Collector (Civil Supplies)], the appellate authority, within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of the order and appellate authority shall, as far as practicable dispose of the appeal within a period of sixty (60) days; Provided that, once an appeal has been disposed of by the appellate authority, the time for issue or renewal of the authorization (License) of the fair price shop dealer by the appointing authority concerned shall begin from the date of the decision of the appellate authority on appeal. c. No appeal shall be disposed of by the appellate authorities unless the aggrieved person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5 d. Pending disposal of an appeal, the appellate authority concerned may direct that the order under appeal shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of. [e. Any person aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority may file Revision before the District Collector of the district. Any person aggrieved by the orders of the 1st Revisionary Authority may file Revision before the Government] 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an appeal does not lie against the suspension order and the appeal lies only against cancellation or issuing or renewal of authorization of fair price shop dealer, before the Collector (Civil Supplies). In this regard, there are certain guidelines framed for dealing the cases on alleged 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. The said guidelines have been framed by duly taking into consideration the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch. 12. Clause (h) of the said guidelines is appropriate for the present case and for quick reference, the same is extracted hereunder: “h. 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.” 13. As per the above said guidelines framed in the circular, without issuing any show cause notice, the appointing authority can suspend the dealership of a dealer, pending enquiry, to protect the interest of the cardholders, by recording the reasons for such suspension. In the present case, as stated supra, the authority has suspended the petitioner‟s dealership by recording the reasons that there is a prima facie evidence that the dealer/petitioner has 6 contravened the provisions of Control Order, 2018 by committing irregularities (variations in stocks) and thereby issued the impugned order, as such, this Court finds no irregularity or impropriety in issuing the said impugned order and hence, the impugned order needs no interference of this Court. 14. However, the provisions of the Control Order, 2018, stipulates that the enquiry has to be conducted preferably within a period of three (03) months and it is brought to the notice of this Court that, so far, no enquiry officer was appointed. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following Order: “The respondent authority concerned is directed to conclude the inquiry within stipulated period as per the Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018.” Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 20th January, 2026 BRS