SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5904

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
K RAMU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 36046/2025



APHC010694212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36046/2025 Between:

1. K RAMU, S/O.RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0847014, R/O. VAJJIREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, KOTHAPATNAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-

523586 ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522503 2.

2. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-523001 3.

3. T HE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAPATNAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-52328 ...RESPONDENT(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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc.No. 1/3695/2024 dated 06.02.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0847014, situated at Vajjireddypalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No. 1/3695/2024 dated 06.02.2025, by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price dealer for shop no. 0847014, situated at Vajjireddypalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above 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:

ORDER:-

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other “….

appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc.No. 1/3695/2024 dated 06.02.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0847014, situated at Vajjireddypalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, ...”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for shop No.0847014 of Vajjireddypalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam Districton 12.03.2025. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities.

3. While the things stood thus, a sudden inspection was conducted at the petitioner’s fair price shop on 12.12.2024 at around 2.00PM by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) along with officials from the vigilance and Enforcement Department. During the said inspection, the inspecting officials allegedly found excess (+) 987 kgs of rice. In pursuant of the report submitted by the inspecting officials, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 30.12.2024, framing a single charge against the petitioner and calling for the explanation from the petitioner, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 08.12.2025. 4. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension pen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top