APHC010071112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 4038/2026 Between:

1. J AYALAKSHMI MAHILA MANDALI(SHG), REP BY SMT.GUJJALA NAGA JYOTHI W/O LAKSHMIKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, FP SHOP DEALER, FP.NO 1182019 R/O PRODDUTUR TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. PETITIONE ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE JOINT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3.

3. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. T HE TAHSILDAR, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. _

5. T HE ENFORCEMENTTAHSILDAR, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

6. S OMA NAGARAJU, S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC CANTEEN (PRESENTLY DISTRIBUTING THE COMMODITIES). SUPER BAZAAR ROAD, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

...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 to issue a Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent suspending my authorization vide proceedings Ref A3/1664/2025 dated 29.09.2025 without concluding the proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. State Public distribution System Control order 2018 as well as order of this Hon’ble court passed in W.P. No. 500 of 2020 also in W.P.No.4751 of 2016 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer by setting aside the 3rd respondent order Ref A3/1664/2025 dated 29.09.2025 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 direct the respondents to supply the stocks to distribute the cardholders by suspending the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Ref A3/1664/2025 dated 29.09.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SREEDHAR MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Questioning the proceedings dated 29.09.2025 issued by the

3^rd respondent vide Ref A3/1664/2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1182019, Proddutur Town and Mandal, H/o Buggala Palli Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. District, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri K.Sreedhar Murthy, 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 variations in the stock found during inspection of the Fair Price shop, issued Panchanama along with show cause notice, for which the petitioner submitted explanation, however, the authorities, without considering the explanation, in a mechanical way, suspended the authorization of the petitioner vide orders dated 29.09.2025 stating that a report has been sent and after concluding 6-A proceedings, they will take necessary action. The said suspension orders were served on the petitioner on 22.10.2025. He further submitted that the impugned suspension order is in violation of the orders passed by this Court in K.Prabhavathi vs. State of A.P., 2020(6) ALD 209 and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

4. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that as the authorities found variation in ground balance of commodities, suspended the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the