JUDGMENT : V. Sujatha, J. The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…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 3 rd respondent vide Rc.E/795/2025 dt:6-9-2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0805005, Narasimhanayunipalem Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt:6-9-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass any other order this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice...” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as temporary Fair Price Dealer for the Shop Bearing No.0805005 situated in Narasimhanayunipalem Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District in the year 2021. While the matter being so, as the Village Revenue Assistant along with Village Revenue Officer came to the fair price shop of the petitioner and pressurized her for submitting resignation and accordingly obtained her resignation on 08.12.2024, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P No.1406 of 2025, which was disposed of, by this Court on 20.01.2025 by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc.E/641/2024 dated 10.12.2024, which was issued in pursuance of the resignation and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer as usual. 3. Subsequently, once again the respondents conducted an inspection over of the petitioner shop and basing on the report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildhar, Darri, on 11.03.2025 the petitioner was kept under suspension on 26.03.2025 without even issuing show cause notice, calling for explanation from the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P No.10075 of 2025. 4. When the said writ petition i.e., W.P No.10075 of 2025, came for admission, this Court passed the following interim order on 24.04.2025. “...Therefore, there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Rc.E/482/2025, dated 26.03.2025 for a period of twelve (12) weeks. Post the matter after twelve (12) weeks. 4. When the said writ petition i.e., W.P No.10075 of 2025, came for admission, this Court passed the following interim order on 24.04.2025. “...Therefore, there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Rc.E/482/2025, dated 26.03.2025 for a period of twelve (12) weeks. Post the matter after twelve (12) weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to submit her explanation to the 3rd respondent. Upon submission of such explanation, the 3 rd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the same by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.” 5. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished a copy of the instructions of the respondent No.3 therein wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 24.04.2025 in W.P No.10075 of 2025, proceedings were issued by the respondent No.3 in Rc.E/482/2025 dated 14.05.2025 withholding the earlier orders issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Rc.E/482/2025 dated 26.03.2025 and duly restored the authorization of the petitioner vide his proceedings in Rc.E/482/2025 dated 14.05.2025. The said writ petition is closed by this Court on 24.09.2025 observing as under: “…5. As the authorization of the petitioner was restored vide proceedings in Rc.E/482/2025 dated 14.05.2025 of the respondent No.3 i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, no cause survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.” 6. The case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondent authorities having been failed to suspend the authorization of the petitioner on two occasions, once again on 06.08.2025, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildhar, Darsi along with VRO inspected the shop of the petitioner basing on IVRS complaint regarding partial distribution of rice and during the course of inspection, the respondents have identified certain stock discrepancies and when questioned the petitioner along with her husband obstructed the Officers, abused them and assaulted them with sticks and stones and further prevented them for discharging their duties. However, in pursuance of the same, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.08.2025 calling for explanation from the petitioner, for which the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 14.08.2025 duly stating that the allegations made by the Tahsildhar that petitioner and her husband have attacked him with sticks and stones is not a valid allegation but refusing the same, requested the respondents to conduct an enquiry with the card holder who were witnesses to the said incident as on that day. But inspite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent passed the impugned order straight away cancelled the petitioner’s authorization on the ground that a Criminal Case vide FIR No.85 of 2025 on the file of Donakonda Police Statiion of Prakasam District has been registered against the petitioner’s husband on 07.08.2025 under Section 121(1), 132, 351(2) of BNS, basing on the complaint filed by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildhar, Yerrogondapalem. 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be seen that in pursuance of the show cause notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 14.08.2025, but inspite of the same, even without conducting any enquiry as required under the Control Order, only on the sole ground that a Criminal Case was registered for serious charges as against the petitioner’s husband, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled, even without assigning proper reasons and application of mind. 8. This Court in Banoth Ramesh vs. State of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary for Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and others, wherein it was categorically held that “4. In the absence of any provision bringing about automatic termination of the authorization on account of the pendency of a criminal case, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to run the fair price shop on the mere allegation of registration of a criminal case, that too on a charge, which is unconnected with the running of the fair price shop. So long as the petitioner’s authorization subsists, he is entitled to function as the fair price shop dealer.” 9. In the present case on hand, a criminal case has been registered only against the petitioner’s husband, which is pending. So long as the petitioner’s authorization subsists, he is entitled to function as the fair price shop dealer.” 9. In the present case on hand, a criminal case has been registered only against the petitioner’s husband, which is pending. As held in the afore cited judgment, pendency of a criminal case cannot deprive the right to run the fair price shop solely on the ground of registration of the criminal case, that too as against the husband of the petitioner. 10. It is also a settled principle of law that criminal proceedings initiated against a third party, even if a close relative cannot form the sole basis for taking disciplinary action against a dealer. 11. As per the above facts, it can also be observed that the respondents have made up their mind to remove the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer by involving her in various cases by inspecting the shop of the petitioner frequently, without there being any complaint either from the card holders or from any third persons and only with an intention to harass the petitioner and handover the shop to same third parties. 12. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner till finalization of the disciplinary proceeding, if any initiated. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.