The appointing authority has the power to suspend Fair Price Shop authorizations pending enquiry without a prior show cause notice, provided the disciplinary proceedings are concluded within a reasonable timeframe as per the Control Order.

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order in Rc.E/1020/2025, dated 29-12-2025 issued by the 4th Respondent/RDO in suspending the petitioner authorization of Fair Price Shop No.0812005 of Gollapalli Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District without properly considering the explanation, dated 20-12-2025 coupled with the documents/statements submitted by the petitioner and without providing the opportunity of personal hearing., as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set-a-side the impugned order in Rc.E/1020/2025, dated 29-12- 2025 issued by the 4th Respondent/RDO with a direction to continue the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner FP Shop., 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 commodities to the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.0812005 of Gollapalli Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District and allow the petitioner to distribute the commodities to the respective card holders by suspending the impugned order in Rc.E/1020/2025, dated 29-12- 2025 of the 4th Respondent/RDO., pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

The Court made the following order:

Challenging the proceedings in Rc.E/1020/2025 dated 29.12.2025 issued by respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop bearing No.0812005 of Gollapalli Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, contended that respondent authorities, alleging excess stock of 121 Kgs of fortified rice and 52 packets of sugar beyond the permissible limit and retaining Public Distribution System commodities even after obtaining authentication of the cardholders through e-PoS, conducted Panchanama and seized the stock in the presence of mediators under a panchanama and also filed a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act before the Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District. He further contended that basing on the reports of respondent Nos.5 & 6, respondent No.4, without furnishing the said enquiry reports, issued a show cause notice dated 17.12.2025 calling for explanation, to which the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 20.12.2025. He further contended that respondent No.4, without considering the said explanation and without conducting any enquiry, issued the impugned proceedings and thereby suspended the petitioner’s authorization for subject shop. He further contended that if the said impugned suspension proceedings are allowed to subsist, the rights of the petitioner would be adversely affected. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that as the authorities found variation in between ground stocks and book balance, suspended the F.P shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following the procedure contemplated under law. He would further contend that the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

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

The petitioner’s FP shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry.

There are c