APHC010072072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-1 [3446]

AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 152 of 2026 The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Appellants Vs.

Sri Katika Akbar ...Respondent **********

Advocate for Appellants : GP for Civil Supplies Advocate for Respondent : Mr K Srinivas CORAM : T HE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 19^th February, 2026 P C :

The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 06.01.2026, in WP.No.1906 of 2025.

2. From the record, it appears that in a surprise check, there were some irregularities allegedly found against the petitioner, who was a fair price shop dealer.

3. Two orders came to be passed both dated 29.11.2024, by the Sub Collector(CS), Kurnool District; one suspending the dealership of the petitioner pending enquiry; and the second requiring him to show cause as to why his fair price shop dealership be not cancelled.

4. Despite the fact that the orders impugned in the writ petition were passed as early as in the month of November, 2024, the enquiry which was sought to be initiated against the petitioner has since not been completed, although learned counsel for the appellants states that the same has since been initiated and the petitioner has already rendered his explanation to the show cause notice.

5. It also appears from the record that by virtue of an interim order, dated 07.03.2025, the learned single Judge, as an interim measure, had suspended the proceedings, dated 29.11.2024, for a period of six weeks, which enabled the petitioner to continue to function as a fair price shop dealer all along as also till date.

6. Finally when the matter came up for consideration before the learned single Judge, the writ petition was allowed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned and the proceedings, dated 29.11.2024, ordering suspension of the dealership of the petitioner, was set aside on the ground that the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned proceedings, regarding suspension of the dealership.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the view expressed by the learned single Judge is erroneous in law and thus unsustainable inasmuch as it committed an error in holding that the order of suspension could not have been issued without waiting for an explanation from the petitioner.

8. This view, we agree, is unsustainable inasmuch as the provisions of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and in particular clause 8(4) of the said Control Order, inter alia, envisages that the appointing authority may, at any time, in the public interest or suomotu or on receipt of a complaint, order enquiry as may be deemed necessary in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued.

Not only this, according to proviso to clause 8(4), the appointing authority also has the power to order interim suspension of the authorization in writing pending enquiry in sub-clause 4 of clause 8.

The second proviso to clause 8(4), however, envisages that the disciplinary case against the fair price shop dealer ought to be disposed of as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing, with a view to prevent any inconvenience to the card holders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System.

9. In the instant case, the authority did have the power to suspend the license given to the fair price shop dealer pending enquiry. The enquiry, however, is envisaged to be conducted and closed preferably within a period of three months. While the three months is not the statutory outer limit, yet, prescription of such a period is only to have an early resolution of the enquiry process, which, in the instant case, have remained inconclusive despite the lapse of more than 1 ½ years.

10. While we are not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge that