Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1870/2026 of NAVIRI ANURADHA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 8 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1870/2026 Between: 1. NAVIRI ANURADHA, W/O. SWARNA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.0523098, R/O.
APHC010027112026
IN TH
MOND
TWO
THE HONOURA
W
Between:
1. NAVIRI ANURADH
YEARS, OCC FAIR
CHATAPARRU VIL
DISTRICT. (534001
1. THE STATE OF A
SECRETARY, C
DEPARTMENT,
AMARAVATI, GUNT
2. THE DISTRICT C
(534001)
3. THE REVENUE D
DISTRICT. (534001
4. THE TAHSILDAR, E
(534001)
Petition under Articl
circumstances stated in
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
DAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL
RIT PETITION NO: 1870/2026
HA, W/O. SWARNA RAJU, AGED
R PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.
LLAGE, ELURU RURAL AND MAN
)
AND
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIV
SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS,
TUR DISTRICT. (522237)
COLLECTOR CS, ELURU, ELUR
IVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU DIVI
)
ELURU RURAL AND MANDAL, ELU
...RES
le 226 of the Constitution of India pra
the affidavit filed therewith, the High
RC,J
DESH
LAPATI
D ABOUT 30
0523098, R/O.
NDAL, ELURU
...PETITIONER
TS PRINCIPAL
VIL SUPPLIES
VELAGAPUDI,
RU DISTRICT.
ISION, ELURU
URU DISTRICT.
SPONDENT(S):
aying that in the
h Court may be
RC,J
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc. No. 1256/2025/A dated 09.01.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India consequently set aside the same 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 proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc. No. 1256/2025/A dated 09.01.2026 by continuing the petitioner as a F.P
shop dealer in Shop No. 0523098, situated at Chataparru Village, Eluru Rural Mandal, Eluru District by enabling him to supply to the card holders pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to vacate the Interim order dated 23.01.2026 passed in I.A.
No.1 of 2026 in W.P. No.1870 of 2026 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.K SRINIVAS
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
This Writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Rc.No.1256/ 2025/A in suspending the F.P.shop authorization of the petitioner.
RC,J
2. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
3. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price shop dealer in the year 2013 and ever since she has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholder, however the respondent no.3 issued show cause notice framing a charge that the petitioner has been distributing commodities through a benami, for which the petitioner submitted suitable reply, but respondent no.3 without considering the explanation passed the impugned orders. He would further contend that the show cause notice has been issued based on the report of the Tahsildar and the said report shows that cardholders of the subject shop raised a complaint against the petitioner as if the petitioner had not been following shop timings and had frequently been citing non-availability of stock thereby causing hardship to beneficiaries and that the petitioner has been neglecting the shop operations, however the Tahsildar submitted a report as if the petitioner was running the shop through a benami, which is not at all the grievance of any cardholder. He would further contend that based on such a report, show cause notice was issued and the impugned orders came to be passed, which are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.
RC,J
4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that in the course of surprise check it was found that the petitioner had been distributing commodities through a benami in violation of Clause 12(a) of the A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, a show cause notice was issued and as the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the impugned orders came to be passed. He would further contend that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders and 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 report submitted by the Tahsildar shows that some cardholders of the subject F.P.shop had given a complaint that the petitioner had not been adhering to the prescribed distribution norms and not been following the shop timings thereby causing delay to the cardholders in getting supply of essential commodities and that the petitioner had frequently been citing non-availability of stock causing hardship to cardholders and the petitioner since been engaged in private employment neglecting the shop operations. The report RC,J
further discloses that thereupon a surprise check was caused through Village Revenue Officer wherein it was observed that the F.P.shop was being run by an unauthorized person other than the F.P.shop dealer and based on the report of the Village Revenue Officer, the Tahsildar conducted surprise check, which also established that the F.P.shop was being run by a benami and thereupon the show cause notice was issued.
7. It is not at all the complaint of any of the cardholders that the subject F.P.shop was being run by benami. The explanation submitted by the petitioner is that during her temporary absence from village as she went to purchase school uniforms to her children, her brother was present in the shop and that too during that period no distribution had taken place.
8. The impugned proceedings nowhere shows that the disciplinary authority had conducted any independent enquiry into the matter and no cardholder was even examined to know the veracity of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it is evident that the Disciplinary authority did not conduct any independent enquiry into the matter and by solely relying on the report submitted by the Tahsildar the impugned orders came to be passed. Therefore, in the absence of the above, it cannot be said that an enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 in its true RC,J
letter and spirit, instead the disciplinary authority has allowed himself to be swayed away by the report of the Tahsildar.
9. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, without conducting proper enquiry as contemplated under clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, the same is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 passed by respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru Division vide Rc.No.1256/2025/A is set aside. However, the authorities are not precluded from initiating action in accordance with law, if they so desire. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 9th March, 2026.
RR