Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/9107/2026 of BHIMAVARAPU SRIKANTH Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 16 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9107/2026 Between: 1. BHIMAVARAPU SRIKANTH, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 38 YEARS,
APHC010172962026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 9107/2026
Between:
1. BHIMAVARAPU SRIKANTH, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 38
YEARS, OCC FAIR PRINCE SHOP DEALER, R/O. RAPARLA
VILLAGE
NAGULUPPALAPADU
MANDAL,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE
JOINT
COLLECTOR,
CIVIL
SUPPLIES,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL SUPPLIES, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, NAGULUPPALAPADU
MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
5. THE
ENFORCEMENT
DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR,
ONGOLE,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...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 aggrieved by the action of the respondents in continuing suspension of the petitioner authorization basing on the proceedings in Rc. 1/1877/2021 dated 27.10.2021 passed by the 3rd Respondent thereby suspending the petitioner authorization of Petitioners Fair-Price Shop No.0845019 situated at Raparla Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently direct the respondents to revoke the suspension by setting- aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent 3rd 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 to direct the respondents to resume the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner for his Fair-Price Shop No. 0845019
situated at Raparla Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, by suspending the proceedings in Rc.1/1877/2021 dated 27.10.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent pending, disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PANGULURU RACHANA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. 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:
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in continuing the suspension of the petitioner‟s authorization basing on the proceedings in Rc.I/1877/2021 dated 27.10.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0845019, Raparla Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri Krishna Sai, learned counsel representing Ms.Panguluru Rachana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the authorities, alleging variations in the ground balance of commodities found during inspection of the Fair Price shop, issued show cause notice, for which the petitioner submitted explanation, however, the authorities, without considering the explanation, in a mechanical way, suspended the authorization of the petitioner without giving reasons vide impugned proceedings. He would further contend that though Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 mandates completion of enquiry within a period of three (03) months, the authorities did not conclude the enquiry till now, therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.
4. On the other hand, Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that as the authorities found variation in ground balance of commodities, suspended the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the procedure contemplated under law. He would further contend that completion of enquiry within a period of three (03) months is not mandatory and it is only advisory as could be perceived from the language employed in clause 8(4)(2) of the Order, 2018. He further submitted that third party was appointed in place of the petitioner and his rights are involved and the petitioner has not impleaded him as party respondent in the present writ petition, if any orders passed in this writ petition will affect his rights, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of non joining of necessary parties, 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 Fair Price Shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry vide proceedings in Rc.I/1877/2021 dated 27.10.2021.
7. 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 (03) months from the date of filing, keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System.
8. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that enquiry had not been completed so far.
9. Simply because the clause says that enquiry to be concluded „preferably‟, it does not mean that the authorities can sleep over the matter for indefinite period. Admittedly, since the date of suspension of Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, more than four years have been lapsed. It is surprising as to why the petitioner did not question the said proceedings for four long years.
10. Further, some third party is running the shop in place of the petitioner and the said temporary dealer is not a party respondent before this Court, as such, instead of going into the merits and demerits of the matter, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing the following order:
“The Revenue Divisional Officer concerned is directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order else the order of suspension shall be revoked.”
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 17th April, 2026
RKS