WP/4794/2026 of Smt. Kondapureddy Nagamani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 March 2026

1. SMT. KONDAPUR REDDY AGED AB F.P. SHOP. NO. 0 PRAKASAM DISTR

1. THE STATE OF A SECRETARY, CON (CS) DEPARTMEN GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE DISTRICT PRAKASAM DISTR

3. THE SUB COLL DISTRICT. PINCOD

4. THE TAHSILDAR, PINCODE 523316.

5. ENFORCEMENT PRAKASAM DISTR Petition under Articl circumstances stated in 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: 4794/2026 EDDY NAGAMANI, W/O. VENKATA OUT 48 YEARS, D. NO. 7-664-C1, S 0884016, MARKAPURAM TOWN AN RICT. PINCODE 523316. AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT NSUMER AFFAIRS, GOOD AND CI T, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, A T. PINCODE 522238. COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES RICT. PINCODE 523001. LECTOR/RDO FAC, MARKAPUR, DE 523316. MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASA DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MARKAPU RICT. PINCODE 523316. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High DESH

LAPATI A NARAYANA SIVAJI NAGAR, ND MANDAL, ...PETITIONER TS PRINCIPAL VIL SUPPLIES AMARAVATHI, S, ONGOLE, , PRAKASAM AM DISTRICT. UR MANDAL, SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in suspending the proceeding Rc.C/092026, dated 07-02-2026 the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 0884016 of Markapur town and Mandal, Markapur Division, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of Indian, the procedure as contemplated under A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) order 2018, and consequentially set aside the proceedings in Rc.C/09/2026 dated 07-02-2026 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P.Shop Dealer and pass such 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 allot the stocks for distribution to the card holders by suspending the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceeding Rc.C/092026, dated 07-02-2026 the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No. 0884016 of Markapur town & Mandal, Markapur Division, Prakasam District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KOPPARTHI SUMATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following order:

Challenging the proceedings of the respondent No.3-Sub- Collector/RDO, Markapur vide proceedings in Rc.C/09/2026 dated 07.02.2026, whereby the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop bearing No.0884016 of Markapur town & Mandal, Prakasam District was suspended, the present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Smt Kopparthi Sumathi, 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, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer for the subject shop. The shop was inspected on 06.01.2026 and alleging variation in the stock, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 in the name of petitioner’s husband instead of the petitioner. As a precautionary measure, the petitioner submitted an explanation. However, without considering the said explanation and without assigning any valid reasons, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended. If the said order is allowed to subsist, it would adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the impugned order, contended that the petitioner’s name has been clearly mentioned in the suspension order. He further submitted that by virtue of the Clause (h) of the Control Order, 2018, the competent authority is empowered to suspend the authorization pending enquiry even without issuing a show cause notice. He further contended that mere mentioning of incorrect name in the show cause notice wound not vitiate the suspension proceedings. He further contended that having submitted an explanation, the petitioner ought to have awaited the outcome of the enquiry and cannot prematurely challenge the suspension proceedings. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a permanent authorized dealer of the subject Fair Price Shop. Perusal of record shows that the show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 was issued in the name of the petitioner’s husband and not in the name of the petitioner, who is the actual authorization holder. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the incorrect mentioning of the name in the show cause notice would not vitiate the suspension proceedings, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention, inasmuch as the very initiation of proceedings against the incorrect person goes to the root of the matter and amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted an explanation to the said show cause notice. However, the impugned suspension order does not disclose any consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order is bereft of reasons and does not reflect application of mind by the authority concerned.

8. Though reliance has been placed on Clause (h) of the Control Order, 2018 by learned Assistant Government Pleader to contend that the competent authority is empowered to suspend the authorization pending enquiry, such power has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. In the present case, the procedural irregularity in issuing the show cause notice in the name of incorrect person and the failure to consider the petitioner’s explanation vitiate the entire proceedings. As there is a glaring and flagrant violation of procedure on the face of the record, no counter is required to be invited and even if counter was invited, the result would remain the same.

9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 as well as the consequential suspension order dated 07.02.2026 are liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 and the suspension order dated 07.02.2026 issued by Respondent No.3. However, this order shall not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating fresh proceedings against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, by issuing a proper show cause notice to the petitioner and affording her a reasonable opportunity of being heard. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 06.03.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.4794 of 2026 06.03.2026

MP