Allowed¶52

Chinthala Subbrayudu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2025WP/433/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair price shop dealership suspension - stock variation - e-pos machine technical defect (in place since 23.05.2023) - explanation dated 20.12.2024 - release orders - Ref.B/2150/2024 dated 23.12.2024 - Revenue Divisional Officer Jammalamadugu - A.P. State TPDS (Control) Orders 2018 - Articles 21, 226, 300-A Constitution - Section 151 CPC interlocutory application - writ petition allowed, suspension order set aside - no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned proceeding vide Ref B/2150/2024, dated 23.12.2024, passed by respondent No.3, set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶52

Chinthala Subbrayudu Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Ref.B/2150/2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by respondent No.3 against the petitioner's fair price shop dealership (suspension over stock variation) are arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The impugned suspension order was passed merely by rejecting the petitioner's explanation dated 20.12.2024, with the reasoning that the explanation was not convincing and the variation in stock was significant.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The documents related to the release orders clearly substantiate the petitioner's explanation; since the relevant information is readily available to the authority, the explanation submitted ought to have been cross-verified with the data available with the authority.

¶47

Key takeaways

In the light of these facts and circumstances, the impugned order is not proper and is liable to be set aside.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Hon'ble Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi, single judge) allowed W.P.No.433 of 2025 filed under Article 226 by the dealer of fair price shop No. 1104015, Chinnasettipalle village (Rajupalem Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District), challenging proceedings Ref.B/2150/2024 dated 23.12.2024 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu (respondent No.3) taken against his dealership over variation in stock, alleged to be arbitrary, contrary to the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A. The dealer had explained that the variation was due to a technical defect in the e-pos machine (in place since 23.05.2023), stated in his explanation dated 20.12.2024 and supported by enclosed release orders; the authority rejected the explanation as 'not convincing' and the variation as 'significant' without cross-verifying it against data readily available to it. Holding that the explanation ought to have been cross-verified and the impugned order was not proper, the Court set it aside, with no order as to costs.

¶1

Jj IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY
19
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^
PRESENT
•-a«S5=^

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 433 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chinthala Subbrayudu, S/o. Subbanna, Aged 40 years, Door No.3-123, Pottipadu, Permanent F.P Shop dealer of F.P Shop dealer of F.P shop No. 1104015 of the Chinnasettipalle Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶11

The Joint Collector, Y.S.R District, Kadapa.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Division^Y.S.R District,

¶13

The Tahsildar, Rajupalem Mandal Y.S.R District.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

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 under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref. B/2150/2024, dated

¶16

¶17

23.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the wellestablished legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and drop all the further proceedings in pursuance of the same.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

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 issue a direct Respondents to continue the petitioner forthwith as the fair price shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Ref.B/2150/2024, dated 23.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY ^

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶22

The Court made the following order:

¶23

APHC010007672025

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

[3311]

¶26

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 433/2025

Between:

Chinthala Subbrayudu

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶40

The Court made the following Order:

¶41

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶42

“...may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order^ordirection under Article 226 of Constitution of India more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.B/2150/2024, dated 23.12.2024 issued by the respondent^No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders 2018 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and

¶43

W.P.No.433of2025 ^ Dt;08.01.202!^)^^

¶44

¶45

Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles^21and300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside^thesame and drop all the further proceedings in pursuance of^thesameand pass such...”

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that^{thepetitionerisa} dealer of fair price shop No.1104015 of Chinnasettipalli^{Village,Rajupalem} Mandal. It is further submitted that the variation^{inthestockispurelydueto} the technical defect in e-pos machine, which has been in place since 23.05.2023. This has been clearly stated in the petitioner's^{explanationdated} 20.12.2024. The same is substantiated by the release^{orders,copiesofwhich} have been enclosed to this petition. However, instead^{ofthoroughlyexamining} and considering this explanation, the impugned order^{videRefB/2150/2024,} dated 23.12.2024, appears to have been passed mechanically,^{merelystating} that the explanation is not convincing and that the variation in stock is significant. Consequently, the learned counsel for^{thepetitionercontended} that the impugned order reflects lack of proper scrutiny^{oftheexplanation} offered and amounts to a mechanical decision to suspend^{thepetitioner's} dealership.

¶47

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of 4 th respondent, dated 07.01.2025 and contended that the impugned order had been passed due^{tothevariationin} the stock and the explanation submitted by the petitioner^{hadnotbeenduly} demonstrated before the authority. 04. Perused the record. 05. The documents related to the release orders clearly^{substantiatethe} explanation offered. Since the relevant information^{isreadilyavailabletothe} authority, the explanation submitted ought to have^{beencross-verifiedwiththe} data available with the authority. Instead of doing so, the impugned

¶48

W.P.No.433 of 2025 Dt:08.01.2025

I '

suspension order vide Ref B/2150/2024, dated 23.12.2024, was passed merely by rejecting the petitioner’s explanation dated^{20.12.2024,with} the reasoning that the explanation was not convincing and^thevariation in stock was significant. In the light of these facts and circumstances,^theimpugned order is not proper and is liable to be set aside. 06. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting^{asidetheimpugned} proceeding vide Ref B/2150/2024, dated 23.12.2024, passed by the respondent No.3.

¶53

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER