Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/13490/2026 of Sri. Mudila Haritha Uma Maheswari Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13490/2026 Between: 1. SRI. MUDILA HARITHA UMA MAHESWARI DEVI,, W/O GOVINDRAO, AGE.
APHC010252572026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 13490/2026
Between:
1. SRI.
MUDILA
HARITHA
UMA
MAHESWARI
DEVI,,
W/O
GOVINDRAO, AGE. ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE
SHOP DEALER (F.P. SHOP NO. 0222009), CHUKKAVALASA
VILLAGE,GARIVIDI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS
AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR
CIVIL
SUPPLIES,
AND
MAGISTRATE, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE
REVENUE
DIVISIONAL
OFFICER,
CHIPURUPALLI,
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE
TAHSILDAR,
GARVIDI
MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
6. THE FOOD INSPECTOR/ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, GARIVIDI
MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT,
ANDHRA
PRADESH
7. SRI GORLE SREERAMULU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGE.
XXXX,
OCC.
FAIR
PRICE
SHOP
DEALER,
CHUKKAVALASA
VILLAGE,GARIVIDI
MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheepurupalli, in issuing proceedings in Roc. No. 111/2026/CS, dated 13-04-2026, suspending the dealership of Fair Price Shop No. 0222009, and appointing the 7th Respondent as temporary In-charge of Fair Price Shop No.
0222009,
Chukkavalasa
Village,
Garividi
Mandal,
Vizianagaram District, without deciding the case there being any valid reason to the petitioner 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, violation of orders of the Honourable High Court in WA 139 of 2025 dt.18.03.2025 and direct the 4th Respondent to lift the suspension order against the Petitioner, remove the 7th Respondent as temporary In-charge, and restore the Petitioner as the Fair Price Shop Dealer with authorization to supply essential commodities to Fair Price Shop No. 0222009, Chukkavalasa Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District, by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Roc. No. 111/2026/CS, dated 13-04-2026 and to 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 4th Respondent to lift the suspension order against the Petitioner, remove the 7th Respondent as temporary In- charge, and restore the Petitioner as the Fair Price Shop Dealer with
authorization to supply essential commodities to Fair Price Shop No.
0222009, Chukkavalasa Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District, by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Roc. No. 111/2026/CS, dated 13-04-2026; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VADLAPUDI BHAVANI NAGA KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that she has been appointed as a dealer of fair price shop No.0222009 of Chukkavalasa Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District and discharging her duties as dealer and supplying the commodities to the cardholders to the utmost satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. While so, the 5th respondent, without conducting any enquiry on the vague allegations that physical stock was not maintained properly in accordance with e-poss machine records, without furnishing any list of alleged irregularities seeking explanation and without recording the statements of the cardholders and without giving any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, unilaterally recommended disciplinary action to the 4th respondent and further recommended the 7th respondent for temporary allocation to the subject fair price shop. The said action is under political pressure wherein suspension of the petitioner’s authorization is without show cause notice, without affording personal hearing or enquiry. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri Vadlapudi Bhavani Naga Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that before passing the orders impugned no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner inviting explanation nor provided an opportunity of being heard. He further submitted that the authorities did not even cross-examine the witnesses. The orders impugned is passed contrary to the judgement passed by this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025, as such, the same is liable to be set aside, accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the judgement relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts on hand. The said order is with regard to final enquiry proceedings wherein authorization has been canceled without following basic enquiry. The present case is only a suspension pending enquiry. The impugned order has been passed temporarily suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry in fact no notice is required to be issued as per rules and circulars in vogue. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that the orders impugned has been passed without issuing show cause notice. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0222009 of Chukkavalasa Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District. A perusal of the record would go to show that on the alleged ground of some irregularities the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended and thereby appointed 7th respondent as temporary dealer. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the authorities has suspended the petitioner’s authorization and thereby appointed the 7th respondent in his place as temporary dealer pending enquiry. The main ground on which the present writ petition is filed while questioning the said impugned proceedings are that no show cause notice or opportunity of being heard is given while passing the suspension orders.
7. In this regard, 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 appropriate for the present case and for quick reference, the same is extracted hereunder:
“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.”
9. As per the above said provisions and the guidelines framed in the said circular, without issuing any show cause notice, the appointing authority can suspend the dealership of a dealer, pending enquiry, to protect the interest of the cardholders, by recording the reasons for such suspension. In the present case, as per the above said provision, the authority has suspended the petitioner’s dealership by recording the reasons that there is a prima facie evidence that the dealer/petitioner has contravened the provisions of Control Order, 2018 by committing irregularities and thereby issued the impugned order.
10. A perusal of the circular would clearly show that the appointing authority, according to Clause 8(4) Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Control Order, 2018’) can suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to the dealer under this clause. The interim suspension order can be passed in writing pending enquiry. It also indicate that issuance of show cause notice is not required prior to placing a fair price shop dealer under suspension.
11. As could be seen from the circular it can be presumed that the same has been brought into existence to protect the interest of the cardholders pending main enquiry. This Court at this stage cannot go into the merits and demerits of the case and decide whether the petitioner has committed any irregularities or whether the variation is negligible or not. When the authority has power to suspend pending enquiry without show cause notice this Court cannot interfere on the ground that the no notice is issued to the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the authorities cannot sleep over the enquiry and conclude the enquiry within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 07th May, 2026
RKS