KAMMILA LEELAVATHI v. THE STATE OF AP
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Apr 2026
- Bench
- RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the authorities, alleging variations in the ground balance of commodities found during inspection of the Fair Price shop, issued show cause notice, for which the petitioner submitted explanation…
- Para 44. Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the impugned order of suspension contending that as the authorities found variation in ground balance of commodities, suspended 1 2020(6) ALD 209 4 the Fair Price shop authorization of the petitioner, pending final enquiry, after following…
- Para 88. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The authorities are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three (03) months from…
Judgment
Cause title
1. KAMMILA LEELAVATHI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER, R/O 1-123 BALAJA STREET G.SIGADAM VILLAGE, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 238
2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532 001
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 532 001
4. THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 532 148
5. THE DY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, G.SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532 14
6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, G.SIGADAM VILLAGE, G.SIGADAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532 148 2
7. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICE VISAKHA B COLONY SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.532 001
8. THE REGIONAL VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, VISAKHA B COLONY SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.532 001. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: 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 a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No.207/2026 CS Dt 05.03.2026 is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of and against the clause 5 of the AP PDS(Control) order 2008 and clause 20(i) of the AP PDS(Control) order 2018 read with Sec 7 of essential Commodities Act and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently Set aside the 3rd impugned Proceedings of Respondent vide Rc.No.207/2026 CS Dt 05.03.2026 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 Suspend the Impugned Proceedings of the Respondent vide Rc.No.207/2026 CS Dt.05.03.2026 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3
ORDER:
Questioning the proceedings dated 05.03.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.207/2026 CS suspending the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0105001, Balaja Street G.Sigadam Village, and Mandal, Srikakulam District, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard Sri T.Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the authorities, alleging variations in the ground balance of commodities found during inspection of the Fair Price shop, issued show cause notice, for which the petitioner submitted explanation, however, the authorities, without considering explanation, in a mechanical way, suspended the authorization of the petitioner without giving reasons in violation of the orders passed by this Court in K.Prabhavathi vs. State of A.P. 1, therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, 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 ground balance of commodities, suspended 1 2020(6) ALD 209 4 the Fair Price 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 Fair Price shop dealership authorization was suspended pending enquiry. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that enquiry had not been completed so far.
Clause 8(4)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, mandates that the appointing authority shall dispose the disciplinary case filed against the fair price shop dealers as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of filing, keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders and for smooth functioning of Targeted Public Distribution System.
In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The authorities are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order else the order of suspension shall be revoked.” 5
Operative part
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Date: 16th April, 2026 RKS _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Apr 2026. The bench was RAVI CHEEMALAPATI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.