IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI **** WRIT PETITION NO: 12151 OF 2026 NARALA MALYADRI, S/O.CHINA KALAGAIH, F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO 0854012, BASIREDDYPALEM-523281, VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI-522237 AND 6 OTHERS … Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 12.08.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT NO:12151 of 2026 % 12.08.2026 Writ No.12151 of 2026 NARALA MALYADRI, S/O.CHINA KALAGAIH, F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO 0854012, BASIREDDYPALEM-523281, VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI-522237 AND 6 OTHERS … Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) AIR 1964 SC 364 2) (1995) 6 SCC 749 3) (2022) 13 SCC 329 This Court made the following: Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement : 12.08.2026 Date of uploading :14.08.2026 APHC010205092026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12151/2026 Between: 1. NARALA MALYADRI, S/O.CHINA KALAGAIH, F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO 0854012, BASIREDDYPALEM-523281, VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI-522237, 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE-523001 3. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE-523001 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, KANDUKUR-523105. PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, GUDLUR-523281, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANDUKUR-523105, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 7. CHENIKALA PRAMILA, W/O. VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. 1-29, BASIREDDY PALEM, DARAKANIPADU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 523 281. R7 IMPLEADED AS PER COURTS ORDER DT. 05.08.2026 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2026 ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of 4th respondent/Sub Collector, Kandukur, Prakasam District, who cancelled proceedings dt.18-3- 2026 in Rc.F/282/2025, is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Honble High Court and not consider case documents and also against the ,mandatory provision of Control Order, and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set-a side the proceedings of 4th respondent/Sub Collector, Kandukur, Prakasam District, dt.18-3-2026 in Rc.F/282/2025 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer. Shop No 0854012, Basireddypalem Village-523281, Gudlur Mandal the authorization of Petitioner in Prakasam District, A.P., 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 may be pleased to stay the proceeding of impugned orders of 4th respondent/ Sub-Collector, Kandukur, dt.18-3- 2026 in Rc.F/282/2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition knd pass IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent No. 7 as Respondent No. 7 in W.P. No. 12151 of 2026 and also pending miscellaneous petitions therein and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANAKA MANASWI 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Alapati Vivekanada, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.F/282/2025 dated 18.03.2026 (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.0854012, Basireddypalem, Gudlur Mandal, Prakasam District. Based on a complaint received from the villagers regarding the irregularities in the functioning of the Fair Price Shop, the Deputy Tahsildar, Enforcement, Gudlur Mandal, conducted a surprise inspection on 08.07.2025. A Panchanama was conducted on 08.07.2025 (Ex.P12). During the inspection, the authority found a variation of (+) 395 Kgs PDS fortified rice. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukur, submitted an inspection report dated 10.07.2025 to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent issued a show cause notice vide Rc.F/282/2025 dated 17.07.2025 (Ex.P7) to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 22.07.2025 (Ex.P8). The petitioner made a representation dated 21.07.2025 (Ex.P10), requesting the allotment of commodities on the ground that his authorisation was still in force. 4. By the proceedings vide Rc.F/282/2025 dated 18.09.2025 (Ex.P6), the 4th respondent cancelled the petitioner’s authorisation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28506 of 2025. The said writ petition was allowed on 25.11.2025, setting aside the proceedings dated 18.09.2025 and remitting the matter to the 4th respondent to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in W.A.No.139 of 2025. The 4th respondent was further directed to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks. 5. Pursuant thereto, notices dated 24.12.2025, 10.01.2026 and 28.01.2026, were issued to the petitioner regarding the inquiry. The petitioner submitted his written arguments dated 09.03.2026 (Ex.P2). The 4th respondent, by the impugned proceedings, Ex.P1, cancelled the authorisation, holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Assailing the said proceedings, the above writ petition was filed. 6. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 4th respondent supporting the impugned order Ex.P1. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 4th respondent, without considering the written arguments submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order. He would further submit that at the time of inspection, no variation was found in the ground stock vis-à-vis the stock reflected in the e-POS machine. The rice bags were found outside the Fair Price Shop; however, within the premises of the house. The 4th respondent, without considering those aspects, passed the order impugned and thus, prayed to set aside the order. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that PDS fortified rice weighing (+) 395 Kgs was found within the premises of the petitioner’s house. The petitioner failed to account for the said quantity of rice. The e-POS system constitutes the actual record of distribution, as the distribution of commodities to the beneficiaries is recorded therein. The 4th respondent considered all these aspects and passed the impugned order. The petitioner, without availing the remedy provided under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, filed the above writ petition and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings Rc.F/282/2025 dated 18.03.2026 (Ex.P1), withstand legal scrutiny. Page 7 of 11 10. The facts narrated supra need no reiteration 11. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while wide, is supervisory and not appellate in nature when it comes to findings of fact recorded by a competent enquiry/disciplinary authority. The Court does not sit in appeal over such findings or re-appreciate evidence as a court of first appeal would; it interferes only where the finding is based on no evidence, is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the material on record, or where the inquiry itself is vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice or want of jurisdiction. 12. This position is settled in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel1, reiterated in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India 2, and relied upon recently in United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee3, wherein it has been held that the writ court cannot substitute its own view for that of the fact-finding authority merely because another view of the evidence is possible. The relevant paragraph from H.C. Goel (supra) is reproduced as under: “23. …In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the respondent‟s grievance in well founded, because, in our opinion, the finding which is implicit is the appellant‟s order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is proved against him is based on no evidence.” 13. In the case at hand, as seen from Ex.P12, Panchanamma, it would disclose that at the time of the inspection conducted by the authority, no 1 AIR 1964 SC 364 2 (1995) 6 SCC 749 3 (2022) 13 SCC 329 variation was found at the ground level vis-à-vis the e-POS machine. However, the authority found (+) 395 Kgs outside the shop. As per Ex.P12, the total stock of PDS rice was 4,550 Kgs, out of which 2,981 Kgs had been distributed, leaving a balance of 1,569 Kgs. If the stock found outside the Fair Price Shop is considered, the physical stock would be 1,964 Kgs. By adding the same, the authorities treated the difference as (+) 395 Kgs, and it is excess stock. 14. Let this court examine the use/purpose of the e-POS machine and its objective. 15. Clause 2(r), of the Control Order 2018 defines “e-POS” as “a device for „electronic point of sale‟ to be used and operated at fair price shops for identification of entitled persons and households for delivery of scheduled commodities with Aadhaar-based authentication or other authentication tools.” 16. Thus, a plain reading of this definition makes it clear that the e-POS device is, by design, a transaction-recording instrument. It authenticates the beneficiary at the moment of supply and generates an electronic record of the quantity supplied to that beneficiary on that occasion. Its function is to record the moment a sale transaction is authenticated. 17. This objective is reinforced by Clause 4(c)(5)(b) of the Order, which provides that the bill/receipt is to be generated “through electronic Point of Sale automatically to the extent of quantity and price of commodities actually drawn by the beneficiary.” Similarly, Clause 6(c) obliges the dealer to distribute commodities “through electronic Point of Sale connected with e- Weighing scales.” A conjoint reading of all the related provisions would demonstrate that the e-POS system is a sales-ledger mechanism; essentially, it reveals to the authorities what has left the shop through the authenticated transactions and what remains in the shop. Page 9 of 11 18. It is pertinent to mention here that the Control Order 2018 itself prescribes a separate and independent mechanism for ascertaining actual ground stock. Clauses 12(p)(1) and (3) are relevant in this regard: “(1) make available stock register by filing electronically generated slips from electronic Point of Sale / manual registers for a minimum period of one year in case of non-electronic Point of Sale fair price shops. (3) make available scheduled commodities physically as per the balances shown in the electronic Point of Sale generated prints to cross check the variation (excess/deficit) in stocks” 19. The word “cross check” employed in Clause 3 gains significance. It presupposes two independent data points - (i) the balance thrown up by the e- POS record, and (ii) the commodities physically found on the ground, which are then compared against each other. Clause 25(f) casts a corresponding duty on the inspecting authority to “verify the closing balances physically with reference to the stocks available in electronic Point of Sale.” 20. It follows that the e-POS record and physical verification are complementary to each other. The e-POS record answers the question as to what has been supplied, and to whom, and the Physical verification answers the actually available stock in the shop at the moment. 21. In the case at hand, the authority was cross-examined. The cross- examination is filed as Ex.P3. A question was put to the authority as to whether there was any variation between the stock reflected in the e-POS machine and the stock found in the Fair Price Shop. The authority answered that there was no variation between the two, but that excess bags had been found. A further question was put as to where the excess stock was found, to which the authority answered that it was found within the household premises. 22. While considering the petitioner’s contention regarding the variation between the physical stock and the stock reflected in the e-POS records, the 4th respondent observed that the e-POS system records the distribution of commodities and that physical verification during inspection is the primary means of ascertaining the actual quantity of PDS commodities available. However, such an observation runs contrary to the scheme discussed supra. 23. It is not the case of the 4th respondent that the petitioner had received a particular quantity of stock and failed to distribute the same to the cardholders, thereby violating the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. It is also not the case of the authority that the cardholders deposed to supply of less quantity. 24. The primary question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the stock found outside the Fair Price Shop but within the household premises of the petitioner could, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be treated as excess stock to constitute a violation of Clauses 10(f), 10(g) and 12(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. If any PDS rice is found outside the shop, and in the absence of variation of the commodity from the ground level, it may attract other consequences, but not the offences alleged. None of the witnesses examined deposed that the stock was retained by the dealer after e-POS authentication. 25. Given the discussion supra, this court concludes that the order impugned in the writ petition suffers from violation of the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. Thus, the order does not withstand legal scrutiny. The proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Consequently, the 4th respondent shall restore the authorisation vis-à-vis the F.P. Shop No.0854012 and supply the commodities and allow the petitioner to distribute the same to card holders. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 12.08.2026 SNI 36 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12151 OF 2026 Date: 12.08.2026 SNI