WP/13003/2026 of Smt.Chinna Nagamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 May 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders dated 13.04.2026 passed by respondent no.4 vide Rc.No.B4/549/2026 suspending the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer of F.P.Shop No.1219007 of B.T.Project Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she has been appointed as F.P. shop dealer on permanent basis in the year 2004 and her authorization is being renewed from time to time. While so, basing on the report dated 09.04.2006 of respondent no.5-Tahsildar, the respondent no.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, issued show cause notice dated 13.04.2026 and suspension order of the even date, for the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 30.04.2026 stating that she was reappointed as F.P.shop dealer by virtue of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and at the time of taking charge, she observed that there was shortage of 335 Kgs .of fortified rice and requested the previous dealer to handover, but the previous dealer did not handover and in that regard she submitted a representation dated 01.05.2025 to the Tahsildar, however, without considering the explanation the Revenue Divisional Officer suspended the F.P.shop RC,J

authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 13.04.2026. Hence the Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

4. Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner regarding shortgage of fortified rice and without conducting any enquiry and without examining any witnesses, the respondent no.4 suspended the authorization of the petitioner and therefore there is patent illegality and procedural irregularity in passing the suspension orders and hence they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would contend that as the authorities found variation in stocks, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended in order to protect interest of the cardholders and to ensure free and fair final enquiry into the matter. He would further contend that as per Clause (h) of C.C.Memo. No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS, dated 28.09.2015, there is no need for issuance of show cause notice before RC,J

suspending authorization and hence consideration of the explanation at that stage submitted to the show-cause notice is not all necessary, and therefore, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

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

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

8. The primary purpose of suspending a Fair Price Shop dealer pending a final inquiry is to protect public interest, prevent further irregularities, and ensure an unbiased investigation. It is a temporary, precautionary measure rather than a final punishment.

9. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch, certain guidelines were framed for dealing the cases on the 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 and clause (h) of the said guidelines states that the power of suspension under clause 5(5) of RC,J

the Control order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power.

10. In view of the above clause the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is patent illegality in passing suspension orders since his explanation was not considered is untenable and the same is hereby rejected.

11. No doubt, the authorization cannot be suspended for an indefinite period. 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. Therefore, the authorities have to complete the enquiry within the time prescribed under the above clause and if enquiry is not concluded within the time, the petitioner can approach the authorities by preferring appeal in the first instance and thereafter this court, if necessity arises, seeking revocation of suspension order.

RC,J

12. In view of the above, since the two grounds raised for seeking suspension of the authorization of the petition are held to be untenable and unsustainable, the writ petition being devoid of merits bound to fail.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 5TH May, 2026.

RR