2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16303
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Nagineni Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 34722/2025
##PAGE1##
I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRI T PETI TI ON No.34722 OF 2025
DATE: 06.04.2026 Betw een :
Nagineni Venkanna ... Petitioner
AND The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer affairs, Food and Civil
Supplies, T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others.
... Respondents
ORDER
Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies,
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking
prayer as under:
“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS Declaring the Order dated 4-9-2025 in
##PAGE2##2
SN,J W.P. No.34722 of 2025
Rc.No. D/1599/2025 issued by the 2nd respondent thereby suspending the petitioner as Fair price shop dealer of FP Shop No. 4313010 Lohitha village, Sangem Mandal, Warangal district as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair price shop dealer of FP Shop No. 4313010 Lohitha village, Sangem Mandal,
Warangal district and pass...”
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner
in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-
The petitioner has been working as Fair price shop
dealer of Lohitha Village, Sangem Mandal, Warangal District. The 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 22.08.2025 in Rc.No.D/1599/2025 to the petitioner stating that the petitioner collected Rs.300/- to Rs.500/- from the Card holders for addition or deletion of family members and also it is alleged that petitioner had collected Rs.1500/- for sanction of new Ration Cards. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.08.2025. The 2nd respondent without considering the explanation of the petitioner and without
##PAGE3##3
SN,J W.P. No.34722 of 2025
conducting enquiry passed an order dated 04.09.2025 in Rc.No.D/1599/2025 suspending petitioner’s authorization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached this
Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD
DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON:
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the follow ing
submissions:
(1) Pursuant to show cause notice dated 22.08.2025
issued to the petitioner herein by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, the petitioner had submitted explanation dated 26.08.2025 to the respondent No.2 herein. However, without considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 22.08.2025 issued to the petitioner herein by the respondent No.2, the order impugned dated 04.09.2025 had
been issued.
##PAGE4##4
SN,J W.P. No.34722 of 2025
(2) The order impugned is in clear violation of
principles of natural justice.
(3) The explanation furnished by the petitioner dated
26.08.2025 to the respondent in response to the order impugned dated 04.09.2025 had not been considered at all.
(4) The petitioner was not provided with an
opportunity of hearing to put forth all the grounds in support
of petitioner’s case.
(5) To substantiate that petitioner was innocent and
he had not collected any amount as alleged by the ration card holders and the very disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner was unwarranted, the petitioner had
to be necessarily provided with reasonable opportunities.
Based on the above submissions, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief
as sought for in the present w rit petition
##PAGE5##5
SN,J W.P. No.34722 of 2025
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 fairly submits that the order impugned dated 04.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 herein is w ithout assigning any reasons and hence
appropriate