Date of reserved for orders: Date of pronouncement : 25.06.2026 Date of uploading :30.06.2026 APHC010320112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16817/2026 Between: 1. S.RAMESH BABU, S/O SOMANNA AGE 41 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.1321009, SOGANUR VILLAGE YEMMIGANUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST.-518360 ...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, KURNOOL DIST., AT KURNOOL- 518002. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI DIVISION, KURNOOL DIST.-518301. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, YAMMIGANUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST.-518360 ...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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.(M). 895/2026 dt 19-6-2026 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1321009, Soganur Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd., ((2010) 9 see 496) and also this Hon'ble Court in W.P.NO.17517/2 019 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 19-6-2026 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.(M). 895/2026 dt: 19-6-2026 in respect of FP Shop No. 1321009, Soganur Village, Yemmiganur ndal, Kurnool 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 order: Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. Assailing the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.(M).895/2026 dated 19.06.2026 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop No.1321009 of Soganur Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District. An inspection was conducted on 03.06.2026, and a panchanama (Ex.P2) was drafted by the inspecting team, recording certain violations. Thereafter, a show cause notice vide Rc.M.895/2026 dated 09.06.2026 (Ex.P3) was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. Subsequently, the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended pending inquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the irregularities were not correctly noted in the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 15.06.2026 (Ex.P4), but the same was not considered by the 3rd respondent while passing the impugned order. He would submit that no reasons were assigned to suspend the authorisation pending inquiry. He would further submit that a show cause notice dated 09.06.2026 (Ex.P3) was issued for cancellation of the authorisation, and the same is impermissible. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that in the panchanama, during the inspection, the team found 10 kgs of excess Jowar and 60 packets (each ½ kg) of sugar in excess. In respect of fortified rice, the team found a shortage. The petitioner is aware of the actual violation in the quantities. The petitioner did not submit an explanation to the 3rd respondent. As seen from the endorsement, the petitioner submitted an explanation to the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, though the show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the violations were correctly noted in Ex.P1 proceedings and that the authority assigned reasons while placing the authorisation under suspension. 6. Thus, as seen from the panchanama dated 03.06.2026 (Ex.P2), the inspecting team found the following irregularities. As per the e-POS, the fortified rice should be 6362 kgs, however, the balance was only 6310 kgs, resulting in a shortage of 52 kgs. In respect of Jowar, as per e-POS the balance stock should be 385 kgs; however, the ground balance was found to be 395 kgs. In respect of sugar, as per e-POS the balance stock should be zero; however, 60 packets of ½ kg each were found available. Page 4 of 6 7. In the show cause notice, Charge No.1 reads as follows: “The inspection team noticed that 50 kgs of PDS rice excess was found, and 10 kgs of jower and 60 pkts (each ½ kg packet) were not found in the ground balance. In this case, the variation beyond the permissible limit 1.5% as per 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.” 8. In Ex.P1 proceedings, the violations are mentioned as follows: Name of the commodity Opening Balance Received stock (in Kgs) Total Stock (in Kgs) Distributed in Kgs On-line e-POS (AEPOS) Stock in physically (Ground Balance) Variation in Kgs Rice (in Kgs) 2.5 12015 12017 5657 6360 6310 (+) 50 (0.90%) Jowar (in Kgs) 47 510 557 172 385 395 (-) 10 (5.81%) Sugar (in ½ Kgs) 0 200 200 200 0 60 (1/2 Packets) (-) 60 (30%) 9. Thus, as seen from the panchanama, on one hand, the show cause notice and the suspension order on the other, the variations are not correctly mentioned. Apart from the said discrepancy, the authority should have assigned specific reasons for placing the authorisation under suspension, as envisaged under the circular instructions vide CCS.Ref.No.PDS.II(1)/307/2025 dated 05.12.2025. Further, the suspension order does not specify the period of suspension as contemplated under Rule 8(4) of the Control Order. 10. Given the discrepancies, keeping the writ petition pending and inviting a counter may not serve any purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of all the learned counsel, with the following directions: i) The impugned proceedings vide Rc.(M).895/2026 dated 19.06.2026 (Ex.P1) is hereby set aside. Page 5 of 6 ii) The learned 3rd respondent shall issue a fresh show cause notice by giving the correct details as per the panchanama dated 03.06.2026 (Ex.P2), enabling the petitioner to submit an explanation. iii) Thereafter, the learned 3rd respondent shall consider the explanation and pass necessary orders strictly in terms of the circular instructions referred supra, as also the Rules in vogue. iv) The 3rd respondent shall complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months. v) The 3rd respondent shall restore the authorisation of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop No.1321009 of Soganur Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District, since the suspension proceedings were set aside. vi) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 25.06.2026 SNI Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 74 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16817 OF 2026 Date: 25.06.2026 SNI