::1:: APHC010181922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9155/2026 Between: 1. SMT.D.SARASWATHI ALIAS VISALAKSHI, W/O C.OBULA REDDY AGE 46 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.1324020, INAGALADAHAL VILLAGE HOLAGUNDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST.-518346 ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.522237 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL DIST., AT KURNOOL.- 518002 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI DIVISION, KURNOOL DIST.-518301 4. THE TAHSILDAR, HOLAGUNDA MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST.-518346 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the ::2:: High Court may be pleased topleased 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)507/2026 dt 25-3-2026 suspending the petitioner's authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1324020, Inagaladahal Village, Holagunda 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 Targetted 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 SCC 496) and also this Hon'ble Court in W.P.NO.17517/20219 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 25-3-2026 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.9155 of 2026 This Court made the following ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd Respondent herein issued impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2026 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop bearing No.1324020, Inagaladahal Village, Holagunda Mandal, Kurnool District. Since after inspection of the fair price shop of the petitioner by the 4th Respondent herein, it was found that the variation of stocks on ground to an extent of 11.70 Quintals in respect of rice bags. Learned counsel further submits that even though the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation stating that the variation was caused due to distribution of rice by obtaining manual thumb impressions due to network problem in the machine. Without considering the said explanation and conducting an enquiry to whom rice was distributed on manual buying and without giving any reasons is arbitrary, irregular and erroneous as held by this Court in B. Jaya ::4:: Rama Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.17517 of 2019, dated 05.12.2019), the Respondent Authorities suspended the authorization of the petitioner is contrary to law. Hence the Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a settled principle of law that when the respondent authorities have exercised their administrative powers, they are required to assign cogent reasons, upon due consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, particularly in matters relating to taking away the benefit which was already conferred upon him. Even the impugned proceedings of suspending of authorization pending enquiry, the same cannot be issued by the respondent authorities without assigning any reasons in view of ratio laid down by this Court in B. Jaya Rama Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra). Therefore, the impugned proceedings liable to be interfered. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader requested time for getting instructions and also submitted that it is only a suspension pending enquiry and after conducting detailed enquiry whether the explanation and statement of variation submitted by the petitioner is genuine or not are to be verified and after such ::5:: verification the Respondent Authorities would pass orders with valid reasons, for which a detailed enquiry should be conducted in the case in hand basing upon he explanation as well as material submitted by the petitioner. 4. Heard both parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The fact remains that the 4th Respondent herein conducted a surprise inspection in respect of fair price shop bearing No.1324020, Inagaladahal Village, Holagunda Mandal, Kurnool District on 04.03.2026 and found variations in respect of rice to the ground quantity is 11.70 Quintals i.e., equivalent to variation 20.02% which is more than variation that would be allowed i.e., @ 1.5% variation. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner even though the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation the respondent authorities did not consider the same in prospective manner and not assigned any reasons, seems to sound reason but material submitted along with explanation warrants detailed enquiry to assign reasons for the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Under the impugned proceedings, it is only an order of suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, after conducting detailed enquiry basing upon the explanation and ::6:: evidence submitted by the petitioner the Respondent Authorities shall pass detailed order as per the control orders in vogue. As per the control orders the entire enquiry should be conducted within a period of 90 days. 6. Therefore, the 3rd Respondent herein specifically directed to conduct and complete the enquiry within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the Respondents are permitted to make alternative arrangements only for temporary period i.e., till the completion of enquiry and to pass the order. By this time if the respondents have already made alternative arrangements, the same should be continued till the completion of the enquiry as directed. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 06.04.2026 krk ::7:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.9155 of 2026 DT: 06.04.2026 krk 88