Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010321612026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17030/2026 Between: 1. M. LAKSHMI RAJYAM, , W/O VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YRS. OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1136011, R/O. D. NO. 3/380 OPP SBI, LAKKIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, LAKKIREDDIPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 522237. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 516269. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTI, LAKKIREDDIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 516269. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, LAKKIREDDIPALLE MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 516269. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, LAKKIREDDIPALLE MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 516269. ...RESPONDENTS THE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE ...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 under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.D1/1092/2025, dated 20.06.2026 communicated to me on 22.06.2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct setaside the same and direct the Respondents to continue me as fair price shop dealer and direct the respondents to pay costs to me and pass 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 to direct the respondents to continue me as the fair price shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Ref.No.D1/1092/2025, dated 20.06.2026 communicated to me on 22.06.2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Venkata Sai Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, for respondents 1 to 5. Page 3 of 7 2. Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Ref.No.D1/1092/2025, dated 20.06.2026 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of F.P. Shop No.1136011, Lakkireddipalle Village and Mandal, vide authorisation No.309/2011, Lr.No.C/810/2012, dated 09.03.2012. An inspection was conducted on 04.07.2025, and the report was submitted to Respondent No.3. Based on the report, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice vide Ref.No.D1/1092/2025 dated 13.08.2025 (Ex.P4) and thereafter stopped supplying the commodities to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34868 of 2025 and the same was disposed of on 15.12.2025, directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop and to allow her to distribute the same to the cardholders until any disciplinary action is initiated against her in accordance with law. 4. In the meantime, a temporary dealer was appointed for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.34868 of 2025, the temporary dealer filed W.A.No.419 of 2026. Initially, the Division Bench suspended the order, dated 15.12.2025 and later modified the same on 05.05.2026, the operative part of which reads as under: “Keeping in view the above, at this stage, it is directed that temporary authorization be given to the competent Village Revenue Assistant immediately to facilitate smooth distribution of essential commodities to cardholders and Anganwadi Centres. Official respondents shall conclude the proceedings initiated vide show cause notice, dated 13.08.2025, to which reply dated 01.12.2025, is stated to have been submitted by writ petitioner. Inquiry be concluded in accordance with provisions of law before next date of hearing. Interim order dated 17.04.2026, is modified to such an extent. List on 15.06.2026.” 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Division Bench, respondent No.3 passed the impugned proceedings dated 20.06.2026 (Ex.P1). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before the Division Bench, it was represented that the enquiry was concluded and recording the same, the Writ Appeal was closed on 22.06.2026, however, Ex.P1 not clear as to whether it is suspension, pending the enquiry or final order under clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. 7. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that in the subject, it was mentioned about suspension of authorisation, whereas in the operative portion, it was stated that the petitioner is not entitled to restoration of Fair Price Shop authorisation. He would submit that it is a cancellation of authorisation and hence, the authority has given liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Clause 24(b) of the Control Order. 8. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings impugned, Ex.P1, are legally sustainable? 9. Before examining the sustainability of Ex.P1, it is apt to notice the directions in W.A.No.419 of 2026. The Division Bench of this Court directed respondent No.3 therein to conclude the proceedings initiated vide show cause notice, dated 13.08.2025 (Exs.P4), within the next date of hearing and adjourned the matter to 15.06.2026. Though the Division Bench directed that the enquiry be completed, the impugned proceedings, Ex.P1, were passed with a certain delay. Page 5 of 7 10. Apart from the above, no reasons were assigned in the impugned proceedings. It is not out of place to state that respondent No.1 issued circular instructions vide CCS.Ref.No.PDS.II(1)/307/2025, dated 05.12.2025. Clause „f‟ of the instructions reads as follows: “After receiving the explanation from the fair Price Shop Dealer, the RDO shall pass a reasoned order either for suspension or for dropping the proceedings (Vide: “K. Prabhavathi Vs. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others” (referred supra) mentioning the provisions of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. If the authority is dissatisfied with the explanation, it may suspend the authorization of the dealer, duly assigning the reason for its dissatisfaction (Vide: “K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra) till such time an alternative arrangement shall be made for the supply of essential commodities to the cardholders.” 11. In the case at hand, except for stating that the petitioner‟s explanation is not satisfactory, no reasons are mentioned by the authority. On that ground alone, the impugned order, Ex. P1, is liable to be set aside. Apart from that, the report on which reliance was placed was not even furnished to the petitioner. The authority should have furnished the report and other relevant documents to the petitioner on which reliance was placed. Thereby, the authority violated the principles of natural justice. 12. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of. Ex.P1 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.3. Learned respondent No.3 shall issue a notice and furnish the report and other relevant documents to the petitioner within one week from today. The petitioner is at liberty to file further explanation, if any, within one week thereof. After receipt of the explanation, respondent No.3 shall conduct the enquiry by affording an opportunity to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order keeping in view the Circular Instructions, dated 05.12.2025 and the order dated 05.05.2026 in W.A.No.419 of 2026. The petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry. Till an order is passed, respondent No.3 shall not appoint any temporary dealer in respect of F.P.shop No.1136011 and continue the same arrangement as indicated by the Division Bench in the order dated 05.05.2026 in W.A.No.419 of 2026, wherein it was recorded that the Village Revenue Assistant is distributing the commodities. If the officer fails to conclude the enquiry as per the orders stated supra, respondent No.3 shall restore the petitioner‟s authorisation and allow her to distribute the commodities. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 29.06.2026 IKN Note : Furnish C.C. by 02.07.2026 B/o IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17030 of 2026 Date: 29.06.2026 IKN