ORDER :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

The case of the petitioner herein is that she has been appointed as fair price shop dealer for Shop No.0423036 in Kovvada Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, in the year 2009 and ever since, she was distributing essential commodities to the utmost satisfaction of the cardholders and the officials. While so, on 08.02.2026, i.e., on Sunday, the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, and Village Revenue Officer inspected the said shop at closing time and found variations in the closing balance of e-pos machine compared with ground balance and seized the stock and handedover the charge to permanent dealer of shop No.0423032. Subsequently, basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural Mandal, the 2^nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 17.02.2026, fixing 7 days time for submitting explanation. On 20.02.2026, petitioner submitted her explanation informing that there is shortage of 1 or 2 Kgs of rice in each bag received from the MLS point and the authorities have only counted the bags without weighing the rice on weighing machine and the said shortage is permissible, accordingly, prayed to drop the proceedings and restore the shop.

2. It is her further case that considering the explanation, the 2^nd respondent passed orders vide G/C NO.68868/2026 dated 02.03.2026 imposing one time penalty with a warning not to repeat such mistakes again and directed to remit the amount through challan towards the civil supplies head of account in treasure department. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said amount on 09.03.2026 vide challan No.91394286492025. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings vide G/C No.68868/2026 dated 02.03.2026 with an anti date duly stating that in view of temporary vacancy arosed due to filing of 6A case against the petitioner, additional charge of the petitioner’s shop has been given to regular dealer.

3. It is her further case that without there being any complaint from any cardholder, the inspecting authorities inspected the shop and without proper verification and examination, the 2^nd respondent issued impugned proceedings suspending the dealership of the petitioner without conducting detailed enquiry. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Heard Ms.N.Anula, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit submitted that firstly the RDO has no power or authority to impose penalty while conducting disciplinary proceedings that too under 6A report. If at all the respondent authority has any intention to suspend or cancel the petitioner’s authorization, they have to invite independent report from the Tahsildar under Control Order, 2018, and issue show cause notice. In the present case, without inviting any separate report, the authority has initiated disciplinary enquiry basing on the 6A report which is unsustainable, contrary to law and Control Order, 2018. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020. She further submitted that though the RDO has no power to impose such penalty, petitioner has complied with such direction and paid penalty. Despite the same, without proper application of mind and without following law, the respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner. If such suspension is allowed to subsist, the petitioner’s rights would be affected, accordingly prayed to set aside the said orders and allow the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders impugned submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has power to suspend the authorization of the petitioner even without issuing notice by virtue of C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015, however, he fairly conce