Vangara Nagaraju Vs the State of Ap

Vangara Nagaraju, S/o Venkateswarlu Age 41 years, occ FP Shop Dealer for shop No.0750004, Gullapalli village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla dist.-522309

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State Of Ap, Rep.By Its Principle Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist.522237.

¶15

The Collector CS, baptla dist., at baptla.-522101.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Repalle division, Baptla dist.-522265.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla dist. 522309.

¶18

Smt Akurathi Malathi, W/o Subrahmanyan fp shop dealer/member of amareswari swaya sangham group R/o Gullapalli village, Cherukupalli Mandal, bapatla dist.-522309

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent Rc.No.1455/2026/C dt 9-l-2026 suspending the petitioner's authorization and entrusting the distribution work to the 5threspondent in respect of FP Shop No.0750004, Gullapalli Village, Cherukupalli Mandal,

¶21

2

¶22

Bapatla Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd., ((2010) 9 SCC 496) and also thishon'ble Court in W.P.NO.17517/20219 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 9-1-2026 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

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 Suspend the impugned respondent vide 3rd the order passed by RC.NO.1455/2026/C dt:9-1-2026 in respect of FP Shop No.0750004, Gullapalli Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.M M M SRINIVASA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶29

Reserved on: 16.03.2026 Pronounced on: 28.04.2026 Uploaded on: 28.04.2026

¶30

The Court made the following order:

¶31

The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings vide Rc.No.1455/2026/C dated 09.01.2026 issued by the 3^rd respondent wherein the petitioner’s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0750004 in Gullapalli Village, cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla District was suspended,

¶32

pending enquiry.

¶33

3

¶34

Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, earlier when the authorities have suspended the petitioner’s authorization on the ground that crime was registered against the petitioner vide FIR.No.198/2024, the petitioner had filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.5873/2025 which was disposed of by this court on 04.02.2026 directing the authorities to conclude the enquiry at the earliest. He further submitted that, again, the Revenue Inspector (civil supplies) along with his sub-ordinates have inspected the subject shop and found variation of 102 kgs of PDS rice. He further submitted that, based on the panchanama and the inspection report, on the alleged ground of variations in the stocks, the 3^rd respondent (RDO) has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 31.12.2025 framing one charge relates to variation of 102 kgs of rice and sought explanation within seven days, to which the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 06.01.2026. He further submitted that, without considering the said explanation, the 3^rd respondent has issued impugned order dated 09.01.2026 suspending the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop No. 0750004 for indefinite period, pending enquiry. He further submitted that, impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside, else, it

¶36

4

¶37

would affect the rights of the petitioner. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

¶38

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 3^rd respondent submitted that, as the authorities have found variations in the stocks, in order to protect the interest of the cardholders, the authorities have rightly suspended the petitioner’s authorization. He further submitted that, the authorities have sought explanation as to why the petitioner’s authorization should not be cancelled but not for suspension of authorisation. He further submitted that, the explanation submitted by the petitioner need not be considered by the authorities for suspending the authorization, moreover, by virtue of Clause (h) in C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015, not even a show cause notice is required to be issued before suspension, pending enquiry. As such, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition, being meritless.

¶39

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

¶40

The petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer is suspended for indefinite period, pending enquiry. The same has been questioned on the ground that, the explanation submitted to the show cause notice was not considered by the authorities while suspending the authorization.

¶41

5

¶42

In this regard, there are certain guidelines framed for dealing the cases on alleged grounds of irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealers vide C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015. The said guidelines have been framed by duly taking into consideration the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch.

¶43

Clause (h) of the said guidelines is appropriate for the present case and for quick reference, the same is extracted hereunder:

¶44

“ h. The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power.”

¶45

As per the above said guidelines framed in the circular, even without issuing any show cause notice, the appointing authority can suspend the dealership of a dealer, pending enquiry. Therefore, the question of considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, to the show cause notice, which has been issued for conducting main enquiry against the alleged irregularities, does not arise. The intention to bring such circular is to protect the interest of the cardholders, by recording the reasons for such suspension.

¶46

Generally the purpose of the suspension of authorization is to prevent the fair shop dealer from distributing the commodities and to avoid further irregularities being meted out by the dealer, pending enquiry of the alleged irregularities. In the present case, since the authorities are alleging 102 kgs variation in the stock, unless a detailed enquiry is gone into, it may not be possible for the authorities to find out whether the dealer is guilty of the

¶47

6

¶48

alleged irregularities. Further, the explanation which is sought to be submitted by the petitioner is with regard to cancellation and thus, it cannot be taken into consideration at the threshold and decide the irregularities alleged against the petitioner.

¶49

No doubt, the authorization cannot be suspended for an indefinite period. However, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, stipulates that the enquiry has to be conducted preferably within a period of three (03) months, which means, the authorities can complete the enquiry beyond three months period also. This does not mean that the authorities can sleep over the enquiry for an indefinite period. If the enquiry is not concluded within prescribed time, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the authorities or this court seeking revocation of the suspension order.

¶50

In view of the above said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that, the contention advanced by the petitioner that explanation was not considered while passing impugned suspension order is wholly unsustainable and the impugned suspension order needs no interference of this court and writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶51

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶52

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶54

BRS

Vangara Nagaraju v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vangara Nagaraju v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.C.Murali Vs K Ananda Reddy

S Shaikshavali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mukkamala Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Sree Kaleswari Travels

Kunche Venkata Lakshmi Vs Pinepe Malamma

Anakala Narayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhimavarapu Seetharami Reddy, Vs Bhimavarapu Basivi Reddy