APHC010717472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 36616/2025 Between: 1. LAKKI SURESH, S/O L.SREENIVASULU AGE 40 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1331016, MADDUR VILLAGE PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST-518593 ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST-522237 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DIST.-518501 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST.-518501 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST.-518112 5. SMT V GAYATRI, W/O SUNIDHAR KUMAR REDDY AGE 35 YEARS, OCC MEMBER OF ANJANAMMAM GROUP, R/O KOTA VEEDHI MUDDURU VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST.-518593 ...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 2 may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry within stipulated period of 90 days and continuing to place the petitioner under suspension for indefinite time Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt 11-8-2025 in respect of the FP Shop No.1331016, Maddur Village, Panyam Mandal, Nandyal Dist., is contrary to the orders passed by this Hon ble Court in E.Lakshmi Narayana vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and ors and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently revoke the suspension order dt.11-8-2025 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and pass any other order this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice. 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 impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dt:11-8-2025 in respect of FP Shop FP Shop No.1331016, Maddur Village, Panyam Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of the 3rd respondent in restoring the Fair Price shop authorization by concluding the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of suspension of the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1331016, Maddur Village, Panyam Mandal, Nandyal District. 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the authorities, alleging that the petitioner had withdrawn 1.35 KGS of PDS rice and sugar of one Smt.P.Subbalakshumma, who died on 07.02.2025 and Rilagalla Lingamma, who died on 02.11.2024, issued show cause notice calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, however, the authorities, without considering the explanation, in a mechanical way, suspended the authorization of the petitioner without giving reasons. He would further contend that though Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 mandates completion of enquiry within a period of three (03) months, the authorities did not conclude the enquiry 4 till now, therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. He further contended that pursuant to the directions of this Court personal notice has been sent to the 5th respondent and the same has been received under acknowledgment which is filed before this Court by way of memo. 4. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that as the authorities found variation in between ground stocks and book balance, suspended the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the procedure contemplated under law. He would further contend that completion of enquiry within a period of three (03) months is not mandatory and it is only advisory as could be perceived from the language employed in clause 8(4)(2) of the Order, 2018 and therefore the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner’s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry vide proceedings in Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dated 11.08.2025. As could be seen from the record though a notice has 5 been served on the 5th respondent, she did not choose to put up her appearance and contested the writ petition. 7. Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 mandates that the appointing authority shall dispose the disciplinary case filed against the fair price shop dealers as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of filing, keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System. 8. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that enquiry had not been completed so far. 9. Simply because the clause says that enquiry to be concluded ‘preferably’, it does not mean that the authorities can sleep over the matter for years together. Admittedly, since the date of suspension of Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, more than three months have been lapsed. Hence, the proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.No.CS/1280/2025 dated 11.08.2025 is hereby set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Till such time, the respondent 6 authorities are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer. 11. 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: 27th January, 2026 RKS