WP/13523/2026 of BHUKYA LAKSHMI BAI Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May 2026

1. BHUKYA LAKSHM YEARS, OCC PER 11244052, R/O.8-3 DISTRICT.

1. THE STATE O BEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VL 522238.

2. THE JOINT COIIE DISTRICT-515134.

3. THE REVENUE IV SAI DISTRICT-5155

4. THE TAHSILDAR, K

5. BOKYA ARUNA BA R/O.8/41, CHEVITI MANDAL, SATYA S Petition under Articl circumstances stated in E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 13523/2026 MI BAI, W/O.LAKSHM NAI, AGE RMANENT F.P.SHOP DEALER, F 32, CHOWTI THANDA, KADIRI, SR AND OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CIVIL REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL LAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTU ECTOR, AT PUITTAPARTHY SRI VISIONAL OFFICE, KADIRI MANDA

591. KADIRI, SRI SATA SAL DISTRICT-51 AI, W/O.JAYA NAIK, AGED ABOU I TANDA, MUTYALA CHERUVU VILL SAI DISTRICT-515591. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High DESH

LAPATI D ABOUT 75 F.P.SHOP NO. RI SATYA SAI ...PETITIONER L SUPPLIES SECRETARY UR DISTRICT- SATYA SAL L, SRI SATYA 5591. UT 44 YEARS, LAGE, KADIRI SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.F/514/2025, dated 10.09.2025, suspending the petitioner's permanent authorization for the Fair Price Shop dealership (F.P. Shop No. 1244052), as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 03.12.2018, and infringing Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's authorization and permit her to continue as Fair Price Shop dealer and to pass such 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 suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.F/514/2025, dated 10.09.2025, and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop dealer and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA

2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Rc.No.F/514/2025, dated 10.09.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for the Fair Price shop dealership (F.P Shop No.1244052), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri K.Sakthi Niranjan Guptha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri S.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the Caveator- respondent No.5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that respondent No.3, based on a report of the Tahsildar alleging that the petitioner was simultaneously holding the post of Sarpanch and functioning as a permanent Fair Price shop dealer, issued a show cause notice dated 01.09.2025, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 08.09.2025. He further submitted that respondent No.3, without properly considering the said explanation, issued the impugned proceedings dated 10.09.2025 suspending the petitioner’s Fair Price shop authorization and allotting the shop to respondent No.5. Therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

4. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension, contending that since the petitioner was continuing both as a Fair Price shop dealer and as Sarpanch, the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending final enquiry,in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 03.12.2018. He would further contend that the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner’s FP shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry.

7. There are certain guidelines framed for dealing the cases on alleged grounds of irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealers vide C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015. The said guidelines have been framed by duly taking into consideration the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch.

8. Clause (h) of the said guidelines is extracted hereunder for quick reference:

“h. The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power.”

As per the above said guidelines framed in the Circular, even without issuing any show cause notice, the appointing authority can suspend the dealership of a dealer, pending enquiry. Therefore, the question of issuing show cause notice does not arise. The intention to bring such Circular is to protect the interest of the cardholders, by recording the reasons for such suspension.

9. Generally, the purpose of the suspension of authorization is to prevent the fair price shop dealer from distributing the commodities and to avoid further irregularities being meted out by the dealer, pending enquiry of the alleged irregularities. In the present case, since the authorities are alleging that the petitioner is holding another office for gain (i.e., Sarpanch), unless a detailed enquiry is gone into, it may not be possible for the authorities to find out whether the dealer is guilty of the alleged irregularities.

10. No doubt, the authorization cannot be suspended for an indefinite period. However, Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 mandates that the appointing authority shall dispose the disciplinary case filed against the fair price shop dealers as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of filing, keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System.

11. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that enquiry had not been completed so far.

12. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage with the following direction:

“The respondent authorities concerned shall conclude the enquiry within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Else, the impugned suspension proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.F/514/2025, dated 10.09.2025 shall stand revoked.”

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

08.05.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.13523 of 2026 08.05.2026

MP