C Pushpalatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C PUSHPALATHA, W/O LATE RAJANI KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC . FP SHOP DEALER (UNDER CANCELLATION) OF F.P.SHOP NO.1111018, GUNTHAPALLI VILLAGE, BADVELMANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶15

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CS) Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, BADVELMANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶17

ASST SUPPLY OFFICER, RAJAMPET, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner FP Shop No 1111018 of GunthapalliVillage, BadvelMandal, YSR Kadapa District in Case No. 1(4)/834/2019, dated 25.04.2020, basing on the report U/Sec.6(A) of the EC Act, 1955 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted

¶20

2

¶21

Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶23

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 pleased to suspend the proceedings in Case No. 1(4)/834/2019, dated 25.04.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent, by permitting the petitioner to supply the Essential Commodities to the eligible card holders from the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.1111018 of GunthapalliVillage, BadvelMandal, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.M SIVA KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶32

“….to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner FP Shop No 1111018 of GunthapalliVillage, BadvelMandal, YSR Kadapa District in Case No. 1(4)/834/2019, dated 25.04.2020, basing on the report U/Sec.6(A) of the EC Act, 1955 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass….”

¶33

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1111018, Gunthapalli village, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district in the year 2009 and ever since, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the card holders, without there being any complaint either from the cardholder or from the respondent authorities.

¶34

While the matter stood thus, the vigilance and enforcement authorities along with Additional Revenue Inspector, Badvel mandal, Village Revenue Officer, Gunthapalli, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 07.08.2019 and upon finding certain discrepancies in the stock, they seized the entire stock and thereafter, the Tahsildar, Badvel has submitted a report dated 07.08.2019 to the Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa district – 2^nd respondent, basing on which, the 2^nd respondent had suspended the petitioner’s

¶35

4

¶36

authorization vide proceeding dated 17.08.2019. Challenging the said suspension order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14190 of 2019 wherein, vide order dated 23.09.2019, this Court has set-aside the suspension order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 17.08.2019. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, though the suspension order dated 17.08.2019 was set-aside by this Court in the said writ petition, the 2^nd respondent has now issued the impugned order dated 25.04.2020, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop basing on the same inspection conducted on 07.08.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶37

When the matter came up for hearing on 29.05.2020, this Court has passed an interim order suspending the operation of the proceedings in case No.1(4)/834/2019, dated 25.04.2020.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶39

Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a copy of instructions of the 2^nd respondent, dated 04.10.2025, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.14190 of 2019, the petitioner’s authorization was restored vide proceedings dated 10.11.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, seeking an explanation, to which, she has submitted an explanation, which was found not satisfactory. As such, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled vide proceedings dated 25.04.2020. It is further stated that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the

¶40

5

¶41

present petition, the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop was again restored in her favour vide proceedings dated 13.06.2020.

¶42

The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be seen from the material available on record that the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price

¶43

shop was suspended vide proceedings dated 17.08.2019 of the 2^nd respondent, which were challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide W.P.No.14190 of 2019. This Court, while observing that the petitioner was not issued any notice before her suspension, has set-aside the suspension order dated 17.08.2019. When this Court has set-aside the suspension order passed by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the respondent authorities have not issued any prior notice to the petitioner, the question of cancelling the petitioner’s authorization straightaway basing on the same inspection conducted on 07.08.2019, would not arise. Without issuing a fresh show cause notice for suspending the petitioner’s authorization, the respondent authorities have straight away cancelled the authorization of the petitioner of the fair price shop No.1111018, Gunthapalli village, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶44

In view of the above discussion and in view of the fact that the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop was revoked pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 29.05.2020 and that the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1111018, Gunthapalli village, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2020 are liable to be set-aside.

¶45

6

¶46

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in case No.1(4)/834/2019, dated 25.04.2020 are hereby set-aside. Further, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1111018, Gunthapalli village, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district, until she is found at fault in any other instance. No costs.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶50

Date:06.10.2025. Gss

C Pushpalatha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Pushpalatha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P Venkateswara Rao Vs Sri Kona Seshidhar IAS

Ratnagiri Jabeen Taj @ Fathima Bee Vs Ratnagiri Saleema Bee

K. Sai Kumar Vs S. Suresh Kumar

D.Bhasker Rao, Vs State of A.P

M Ramana Vs the State of Ap

G. Sridhar Gopala Krishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh