(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent passed order Rc.No. 82/2025, dated 04.02.2025 with regard to suspension of the petitioner fair price shop No. 0119001 situated at Peddapadu Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District without considering the explanation is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and directed to respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Dealer in Fair Shop No. 0119001 situated at Peddapadu Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District by supplying Essential Commodities and to pass such

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

The Court made the following order:

The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings vide Rc.No.82/2025 dated 04.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent (RDO) wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0119001 situated in Pedapadu Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District, was suspended without conducting enquiry and without following the procedure as contemplated under A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (control) order, 2018.

Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 20.01.2025 on the alleged ground of irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. He further submitted that, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 23.01.2025 but the 2nd respondent(RDO), however, without considering the said explanation and without conducting any enquiry, has issued impugned order dated 04.02.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop. He further submitted that, this court, by way of interim order dated 10.03.2025, has protected the interest of the petitioner and by virtue of the said interim orders, the petitioner is running the fair price shop. As such prayed to dispose of the writ petition by treating the interim order as final order.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 2nd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that, in order to protect the interest of the cardholder, the impugned order has been issued and further submitted that, in the event if this court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the authority concerned to conclude the enquiry in stipulated period in accordance with law.

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.0119001 situated in Pedapadu Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District. On the alleged ground of irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, a show cause notice dated 20.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner asking to submit explanation by framing charges and the petitioner has submitted explanation on 23.01.2025. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent authorities, without considering the said explanation and without conducting an enquiry, issued the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop.

Ho