Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :30.06.2026 Date of uploading :07.07.2026 APHC010305292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15847/2026 Between: 1. VALAPARLA KRISHNA VENI, D/O. DAVEED, AGED 54 YEARS OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER RIO. H.NO. 4-131 UTUKURU VTC KROSURU KROSURU MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT A.P.SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI.-522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPETA.-522601 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SATTENAPALLI REVENUE DIVISION AT SATTENAPALLI NARASARAOPETA DISTRICT.-522403 4. THE MANDAL THASILDAR, KROSURU MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT.-522410 5. DIVYA SWAYAM SIDHA MPG, REP BY ITS MEMBER JELDHI JHANSI TEMPORARY FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER W/O RAVI UTUKURU VILLAGE KROSURU MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT 522410 ...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 the 3rd respondent in issuing through Proceedings in Rc.754/2026-C dated 02.06.2026 by suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 0708015 of Utukuru Village Krosuru Mandal Palnadu District without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without following the procedure contemplated under law as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold Shop No. 0708015 of Utukuru Village Krosuru Mandal Palnadu District and to pas 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 the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's fair Shop No. 0708015 of Utukuru Village Krosuru Mandal Palnadu District by suspending the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.754/2026-C dated 02.06.2026 pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Heard Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 5th respondent. 3. Assailing the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.754/2026-C dated 02.06.2026 (Ex.P1), whereby the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended pending inquiry for a period of 90 days, the above writ petition was filed. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer in respect of F.P. Shop No.0708015 of Utukuru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Palnadu District. The Mandal Revenue Inspector inspected the Fair Price Shop on 27.05.2026, found certain variations regarding the essential commodities, and submitted a report to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, by the proceedings impugned Ex.P1, suspended the petitioner pending inquiry for a period of 90 days. The 3rd respondent recorded a finding that there was prima facie evidence indicating that the dealer had contravened the provisions of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 by diverting fortified rice to the black market for her personal gain and by failing to distribute six packets of sugar (each weighing ½ kg) to the cardholders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the proceedings impugned Ex.P1. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would submit that the order impugned Ex.P1 is only an order suspending the petitioner pending inquiry and that the 3rd respondent would follow the procedure under Clause 8(4) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. He relied upon the order in W.A.No.152 of 2026. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 19.02.2026 in W.A.No.152 of 2026, considered whether a show cause notice is necessary to place a Fair Price Shop Dealer under suspension and observed as follows: “This view, we agree, is unsustainable inasmuch as the provisions of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and in particular clause 8(4) of the said Control Order, inter alia, envisages that the appointing authority may, at any time, in the public interest or suomotu or on receipt of a complaint, order enquiry as may be deemed necessary in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued. Not only this, according to proviso to clause 8(4), the appointing authority also has the power to order interim suspension of the authorization in writing pending enquiry in sub-clause 4 of clause 8. The second proviso to clause 8(4), however, envisages that the disciplinary case against the fair price shop dealer ought to be disposed of as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing, with a view to prevent any inconvenience to the card holders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System.” 8. In the case at hand, the 3rd respondent exercised the jurisdiction vested in it as per Clause 8(4) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and suspended the petitioner for a period of 90 days. The 5th respondent was appointed as a temporary dealer to ensure smooth distribution of the essential commodities. 9. This Court does not find any violation of Clause 8(4) of A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2018 vis-à-vis the exercise of jurisdiction by the 3rd respondent. 10. The second proviso to Clause 8(4) of A.P.S.T.D.S. Control (Order) 2018 mandates that the appointing authority shall dispose of the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to complete the inquiry by adhering to the time prescribed in the second proviso to Clause 8(4) of A.P.S.T.D.S. Control (Order) 2018 and by following the procedure indicated in the order dated 19.02.2026 in W.A.No.152 of 2026. The petitioner shall cooperate during the inquiry. If the 3rd respondent fails to complete the inquiry within the stipulated time, Ex.P1 gets suspended without reference to any further order, and the authorisation of the petitioner gets restored automatically. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 30.06.2026 SNI Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 126 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15847 OF 2026 Date: 30.06.2026 SNI