WP/6226/2026 of M ANAND Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 5 March 2026

1. M ANAND, S/O.M R/O.H.NO.7-35, KO

1. THE STATE OF SECRETARY, CO DEPARTMENT

GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE DISTRICT C DISTRICT, KURNO

3. THE REVENUE KURNOOL.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, D

5. M SIRISHA, W/O DEALER, SHOP NO Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a Writ, o of Writ of Mandamus, de an order vide proce E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 6226/2026 M.AMBOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT OTHAPETA, DHONE, KURNOOL DIS AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY NSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIV SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, T. COLLECTOR, CIVIL SUPPLIES(CS) OOL. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOO DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTR O.M.MALLIKHARJUNA REDDY, O.1385067 DHONE, KURNOOL DIST ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High order or direction, more particularly o eclaring the action of the 2nd Respon edings No.Rc.CS.3/194/2018 date DESH

LAPATI 50 YEARS, STRICT. ...PETITIONER Y PRINCIPAL VIL SUPPLIES AMARAVATHI, ), KURNOOL OL DISTRICT, RICT. TEMPORARY TRICT. SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be ne in the nature ndent in passing ed 30.10.2018, confirming the order passed by the 3rd Respondent vide proceedings in Rc.B/05/2018 dated 21.03.2018, thereby suspending the petitioner's authorization of Fair Price Shop No.17-A(Current No.1385067) of Dhone Town, Kurnool District for an indefinite period andin not concluding the disciplinary proceedings despite completion of almost 8 years from the date of suspension as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the Clause 8(4)(2) of the A.P. TPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to restore the authorization of the Petitioner by considering the petitioner's renewal application dated 21.02.2026, by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings No.Rc.CS.3/194/2018 dated 30.10.2018 confirming the order passed by the 3rd Respondent vide proceedings in Rc.B/05/2018 dated 21.03.2018suspending the petitioner for an indefinite period and to 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 respondent authorities to restore the authorization of the Petitioner Fair Price Shop No.17-A(Current No. 1385067) of Dhone Town, Kurnool District, pending disposal of the above and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SANAKA MANASWI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings in Rc.CS.3/194/2018 dated 30.10.2018 issued by respondent No.2-Collector (CS) & Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool, confirming the order passed by respondent No.3- Revenue Divisional Officer in RDOKNL-WROCS(DC)/13/2018-DVNLASO(KNL) dated 17.04.2018, thereby suspending the petitioner’s authorization of Fair Price shop No.17-A (Current No.1385067) of Dhone Town, Kurnool District for indefinite period, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Ms Sanaka Manaswi, 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 that the petitioner had diverted the rice, sugar and wheat atta into black market for his personal gain, distributed sugar of 350 grams instead of 500 grams, and was not displaying the name board and price board or maintaining the prescribed timings, issued show cause notice calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted explanation, dated 31.03.2018, however, respondent No.3, without considering the explanation, in a mechanical way, suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop for an indefinite period vide proceedings dated 17.04.2018 by simply observing that the explanation of the petitioner is not convincing. She would further contend that aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2, without considering the contentions of the petitioner, vide impugned proceedings, confirmed the orders of respondent No.3 in a mechanical manner. She would further contend that at present the unofficial respondent is being continued as a temporary dealer for the subject shop. She 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. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while justifying the impugned order of suspension, contended that as the authorities found variation in between ground stocks and book balance, suspended the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization, 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 and therefore 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 vide proceedings of respondent No.3 in Rc.RDOKNL-WR0CS (DC)/13/2018-DVNLASO (KNL) dated 17.04.2018 and the same was confirmed by respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Rc.CS.3/194/2018 dated 30.10.2018.

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 years together. Admittedly, since the date of suspension of Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, almost eight years have lapsed.

10. As no positive orders are being passed affecting the rights of the unofficial respondent, no notice is required to be issued to the unofficial respondent and no counter is also required from the official respondents.

11. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, to meet the ends of justice, the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction:

“The respondent authorities concerned shall conclude the enquiry within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Else, the suspension proceedings issued by respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer in Rc.RDOKNL- WR0CS (DC)/13/2018-DVNLASO (KNL) dated 17.04.2018 shall stand revoked.”

12. 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 06.03.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.6226 of 2026 06.03.2026

MP