WP/8378/2026 of Smt. PERAM MANGAMMA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 8 April 2026

1. SMT. PERAM MAN AGED 53 YEARS, O GOLLAPALLI VILLA 523001

1. THE STATE OF A SECRETARY, CON DEPT., SECRETA GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE DISTRICT DISTRICT, ONGOL

3. THE JOINT COLLE ONGOLE. 523001

4. THE REVENUE D DISTRICT. 523230

5. THE TAHSILDAR, P

6. THE ENFORCEM PRAKASAM DISTR

7. THE FOOD INSPEC E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 8378/2026 NGAMMA, W/O. VENKATA NARAY OCC FP SHOP DEALER, F.P SHOP AGE, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASA AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS NSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIV ARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPU T. 522238 COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, LE. 523001 ECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT (CIV DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTR ENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, POD RICT. 223240 CTOR, PODILI, PRAKASAM DISTRIC ...RES DESH

LAPATI YANA REDDY, P NO.0812005, AM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER S PRINCIPAL VIL SUPPLIES DI, GUNTUR, PRAKASAM VIL SUPPLIES) PRAKASAM RICT.523240 DILI MANDAL, CT. 523240 SPONDENT(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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order in Rc.E/1020/2025, dated 29-12-2025 issued by the 4th Respondent/RDO in suspending the petitioner authorization of Fair Price Shop No.0812005 of Gollapalli Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District without properly considering the explanation, dated 20-12-2025 coupled with the documents/statements submitted by the petitioner and without providing the opportunity of personal hearing., as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set-a-side the impugned order in Rc.E/1020/2025, dated 29-12- 2025 issued by the 4th Respondent/RDO with a direction to continue the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner FP Shop., 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 supply the commodities to the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.0812005 of Gollapalli Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District and allow the petitioner to distribute the commodities to the respective card holders by suspending the impugned order in Rc.E/1020/2025, dated 29-12- 2025 of the 4th Respondent/RDO., pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings in Rc.E/1020/2025 dated 29.12.2025 issued by respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop bearing No.0812005 of Gollapalli Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, contended that respondent authorities, alleging excess stock of 121 Kgs of fortified rice and 52 packets of sugar beyond the permissible limit and retaining Public Distribution System commodities even after obtaining authentication of the cardholders through e-PoS, conducted Panchanama and seized the stock in the presence of mediators under a panchanama and also filed a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act before the Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District. He further contended that basing on the reports of respondent Nos.5 & 6, respondent No.4, without furnishing the said enquiry reports, issued a show cause notice dated 17.12.2025 calling for explanation, to which the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 20.12.2025. He further contended that respondent No.4, without considering the said explanation and without conducting any enquiry, issued the impugned proceedings and thereby suspended the petitioner’s authorization for subject shop. He further contended that if the said impugned suspension proceedings are allowed to subsist, the rights of the petitioner would be adversely affected. Hence, 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 between ground stocks and book balance, suspended the F.P 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 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 judgment 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, 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.

9. 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.

10. In view of the referred provision supra, the authority has power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry. No detailed enquiry is required at this stage. Hence, instead of going into the merits of the case, the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction:

“The respondent authorities concerned shall conclude the enquiry within a period of two (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Else, the impugned suspension proceedings dated 29.12.2025 issued by respondent No.4 vide Rc.E/1020/2025 shall stand revoked.”

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

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 09.04.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.8378 of 2026 09.04.2026

MP