Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/9875/2026 of KAMMILA LEELAVATHI Vs THE STATE OF AP on 15 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9875/2026 Between: 1. KAMMILA LEELAVATHI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
APHC010127862026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 9875/2026
Between:
1. KAMMILA LEELAVATHI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER, R/O 1-123 BALAJA
STREET
G.SIGADAM
VILLAGE,
G.SIGADAM
MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS , PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY
CIVIL
SUPPLIES
DEPT,
SECRETARIAT
VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 238
2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT.532 001
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 532 001
4. THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 532 148
5. THE DY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532 14
6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, G.SIGADAM VILLAGE, G.SIGADAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532 148
7. THE
SUBINSPECTOR
OF
POLICE,
VIGILANCE
AND
ENFORCEMENT OFFICE VISAKHA B COLONY SRIKAKULAM
TOWN AND DISTRICT.532 001
8. THE REGIONAL VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, VISAKHA B COLONY SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.532
001.
...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 to declare the impugned Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No.207/2026 CS Dt 05.03.2026 is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 20(i)
of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently Set aside the impugned Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No.207/2026 CS Dt 05.03.2026 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 Suspend the Impugned Proceedings of the Respondent vide Rc.No.207/2026 CS Dt.05.03.2026 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
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:
Questioning the proceedings dated 05.03.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.207/2026 CS suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0105001, Balaja Street G.Sigadam Village, and Mandal, Srikakulam District, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri T.Tejeswara Rao, 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 in violation of the orders passed by this Court in K.Prabhavathi vs. State of A.P. 1, 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 as the authorities found variation in ground balance of commodities, suspended 1 2020(6) ALD 209
the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the procedure contemplated under law. 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 Fair Price shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that enquiry had not been completed so far.
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. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order:
“The authorities are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order else the order of suspension shall be revoked.”
9. 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: 16th April, 2026
RKS