APHC010698712025 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: 36020/2025 Between: 1. PALLEBOYINA NAGA SUDHA, W/O. ARJUNA RAO AGE 30 YEARS PALUKURU VILLAGE BOLLAPALLI MANDAL,PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI.-522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASAROPET -522601 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASAROPET-522601 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASAROPET REVENUE DIVISION AT NARASAROPET PALNADU DISTRICT.- 522601 5. THE TAHASILDAR, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL BOLLAPALLI PALNADU DISTRICT. -523167 6. SAMPATHI ACHAMMA, W/O. ACHANNA AGE NOT KNOWN NAVODAYA DWAKARA GROUP, PALUKURU VILLAGE 2 BOLLAPALLI MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT. -523101 ...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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.2443/2025-G dated 30.11.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No. 0721040 Palukuru Village Bollapalli Mandal Palnadu District without valid reason without considering the petitioner explanation and without providing a personal hearing, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, the Essential Commodities Act, and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as dealer of Shop No. 0721040 Palukuru Village Bollapalli Mandal Palnadu 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner Fair Shop No. 0721040 of Palukuru Village Bollapalli Mandal Palnadu District by suspending the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Rc.No. 2443/2025-G dated 30.11.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings vide Rc.No.2443/2025-G dated 30.11.2025 wherein the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0721040 in Palakuru Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District was suspended without valid reasons, without considering the explanation and without hearing the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Smt Marella Radha, 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 contended that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.11.2025 on the alleged ground of variations in the stocks. She further submitted that, to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted an explanation dated 20.11.2025 to the respondent authorities, however, without considering the same, the respondent authorities have issued impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2025 suspending the petitioner‟s dealership for fair price shop No.0721040 for indefinite period even without hearing the petitioner. She further submitted that if the said impugned proceedings are allowed to 4 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 impugned 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, as such, the same is not maintainable and 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 parties should not be remediless, as such, the writ petition is maintainable. Further, the order impugned, suspending the petitioner‟s dealership without any reasons, 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. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5 7. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.0721040 in Palakuru Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. On the ground that during inspection, some variation in the stock was found, a show cause notice vide Rc.No.2443/2025-G dated 13.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner asking to submit explanation by framing charges. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 20.11.2025, however, without considering the same, the impugned order has been issued, suspending the petitioner‟s dealership for the fair price shop, pending enquiry as an interim measure. 8. The said impugned proceedings/order has been questioned solely on the ground that the same has been issued due to political vengeance and in order to issue the dealership to some third parties, exerting political pressure on the revenue authorities, to terminate the petitioner from the dealership without any valid reasons. The other ground that has been raised by the petitioner is that the order impugned was issued without issuing cogent reasons and further stated that the petitioner was not present in the shop during the inspection. 9. 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 6 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 authorization (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. 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] 10. 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 7 guidelines have been framed by duly taking into consideration the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch. 11. 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.” 12. As per the above said provisions and the guidelines framed in the said 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 per the above said provision, the authority has suspended the petitioner‟s dealership by recording the reasons that there is a prima facie evidence that the dealer/petitioner has contravened the provisions of Control Order, 2018 by committing irregularities (variations in stocks) and thereby issued the impugned order, as such, this Court find no irregularity or impropriety in issuing the said impugned order and hence, the impugned order needs no interference of this Court. 13. However, the Control Order, 2018, stipulates that 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 8 appointed. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority concerned to conclude the enquiry within stipulated period as per the Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018.” 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: 20th January, 2026 Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow i.e., 23.01.2026 B/o RKS