ORDER : V. SUJATHA, J. Writ Petition No.24493 of 2025 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4 th Respondent in issuing the Suspension/Cancellation Order vide proceedings in Rc.No.D/CS/62/2025 dated 25.08.2025, against the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.1385018, Dhone Town, Nandyal District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set aside the same.….” 2) Writ Petition No.24494 of 2025 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4 th Respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.D/CS/62/2025 dated 25.08.2025 by cancelling/suspending the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner for Shop No.1385017, Dhone Town, Nandyal District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set aside the same.….” 3) Writ Petition No.24496 of 2025 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3 rd Respondent in passing the impugned Suspension/Cancellation Order vide Rc.No.D/CS/64/2025 dated 25.08.2025, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.1385067, Dhone Town, Nandyal District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set aside the same.….” 4) Since the relief claimed in these petitions is identical, and as the impugned orders were passed on the same day, I find it appropriate to decide these writ petitions by way of a common order taking Writ Petition No.24493 of 2025 as leading case. 5) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer in the year 2019 for Fair Price Shop No.1385018 in Dhone Town, Nandyal District and has been distributing essential commodities to  the cardholders and her authorization No.C3/231/2019 was valid up to 31.03.2027. 6) While the things stood thus, respondent No.4 – the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings Rc.No.D/CS/62/2025 dated 21.01.2025 terminated the petitioner's authorization without issuing show-cause notice and without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4330 of 2025, this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025 set aside the termination order dated 21.01.2025 as it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In compliance with the order of this Court, respondent No.3 reinstated the petitioner as a dealer vide proceedings dated 12.03.2025. 7) Subsequently, on 10.07.2025 an inspection was conducted in the petitioner's Fair Price Shop and having found certain variations, the inspecting authorities have submitted a report to respondent No.5 herein, who in turn submitted two reports to respondent No.4 for initiating 6A proceedings and disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner. In pursuance of which, respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice and as well as a separate notice for conducting enquiry, dated 25.07.2025 vide Rc.No.D/CS/62/2025, framing six charges alleging that there is variation of (+) 500 Kgs of rice and (-) 205 packets of sugar and other charges regarding tampering with e- PoS machine, for which the petitioner submitted her explanation on 07.08.2025 denying the charges framed against her and contended that no such inspection was conducted on 10.07.2025 as alleged in the show cause notice. However, respondent No.4 issued impugned suspension order dated 25.08.2025 without assigning any reasons as to why her explanation was not satisfactory. Further, it is doubtful as to whether the said impugned order was passed suspending the petitioner's authorization or cancelling the authorization. However, respondent No.4 issued impugned suspension order dated 25.08.2025 without assigning any reasons as to why her explanation was not satisfactory. Further, it is doubtful as to whether the said impugned order was passed suspending the petitioner's authorization or cancelling the authorization. The relevant portion of the impugned suspension order dated 25.08.2025 is as follows: “In view of the above lapses committed by the Temporary FP shop dealer, the authorization Smt. V.Shobha Alias Tarasani Sujatha F.P.Shop Dealer, F.P.Shop No. 1385018, Dhone Town, Nandyal District is hereby cancelled and Smt. V.Shobha Alias Tarasani Sujatha F.P Shop Dealer, F.P Shop No.1385018 is hereby Suspended” 8) In other two writ petition Nos.24494 and 24496 of 2025 also filed by the Fair Price shop dealers, respondent No.4 passed the similar orders suspending their authorization in respect of Fair Price shop Nos.1385017 and 1385067 respectively. Challenging the said suspension/cancellation orders dated 25.08.2025 issued by respondent No.4, the present writ petitions have been filed. 9) When these writ petitions came up for hearing on 12.09.2025, as the impugned orders dated 25.08.2025 are not clear as to whether the impugned proceedings are issued cancelling the petitioners' authorization over the fair price shop or suspending them, this Court directed respondent No.4 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone Division, Dhone, Nandyal District to appear before this Court on 16.09.2025. 10) On 16.09.2025, respondent No.4 appeared before this Court and admitted the mistake committed by him in the said impugned proceedings stating that the mistake crept in the orders because of work pressure and he undertook that he will not commit such mistakes in future. Considering the same, this Court passed an interim order suspending the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2025 duly directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioners herein pending the writ petitions. 11) Heard Ms.Ayesha Azma.S, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General and Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Department. Considering the same, this Court passed an interim order suspending the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2025 duly directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioners herein pending the writ petitions. 11) Heard Ms.Ayesha Azma.S, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General and Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Department. 12) During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court the order passed in W.P.No.18955 of 2025, wherein this Court observing that in variably in all the matters the appointing authority is not supplying essential commodities to the dealers without initiating any action has directed respondent No.1 therein to issue suitable instructions to the appointing authorities across the State to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated in the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short “APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018”) for suspending/cancelling the authorization of the Fair Price Shop dealers. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued circular instructions vide CCS.Ref.No.PDS.II(1)/307/2025 dated 25.08.2025 directing all the appointing authorities to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and clarified that any deviation will be viewed seriously. Respondent No.2 further directed all the Collectors (CS) to ensure that no FPS dealer is denied Essential Commodities without initiating proper action strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, particularly in matters relating to suspension/cancellation of authorization or imposition of fines/penalties, to avoid violation of due process and also directed them to issue clear directions to all the appointing authorities to strictly comply with the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.18955 of 2025 dated 25.07.2025. 13) In spite of the said directions given by this Court in W.P.No.18955 of 2025 and as well as the subsequent circular instructions issued by respondent No.2 on 25.08.2025, it has been noticed by this Court that in most of the cases, the authorities are not following the procedure prescribed in the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 while suspending or cancelling the authorizations. This Court has also observed that the respondents are passing suspension as well as cancellation orders without following due process of law especially without issuing any show cause notice and conducting a detailed enquiry as contemplated under the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. This Court has also observed that the respondents are passing suspension as well as cancellation orders without following due process of law especially without issuing any show cause notice and conducting a detailed enquiry as contemplated under the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to reiterate the procedure prescribed in the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, to be followed by the authorities from the date of inspection till the date of cancellation of authorization of Fair Price Shop dealers and as well as the law laid down in various judgments regarding the procedure to be adopted by the respondent authorities before initiating disciplinary proceedings. 14) On receipt of credible information, the inspecting officials shall inspect the shop and conduct panchanama in accordance with clause 20 of the APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018, which reads as under: “20. Power of entry, inspect, search and seize the scheduled commodities, ask questions for production of documents etc.: (a) Any officer or person authorized by the State Government or by the District Collector or by Collector (Civil Supplies) the appointing authority or any officer of the Civil Supplies / other State Govt. departments not below the rank of Revenue Inspector / Checking Inspector / Enquiry Inspector (Civil Supplies), or any Gazetted Officer of Vigilance and Enforcement Department of the State or any officer authorized in the behalf by the State Government not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police may enter the premises of the fair price shop or any private premises where the scheduled commodities pertaining to Targeted Public Distribution System or other Government schemes are kept/positioned or found in transit and conduct inspection and seize any stocks of scheduled commodities, supply documents or books, accounts or other related document for the purpose of such inspection/seizure for contravention of the provisions of this Order. Officers of Legal Metrology Department, Team of Social Audit appointed by Commissioner of Civil Supplies are also empowered to inspect the fair price shop premises, in regard to weights and measures; (b) On entering the premises of any establishment or shop, for conducting inspection, the inspecting officer shall observe the social and religious customs of the occupants of the premises; (c) To summon and enquiry any person with the relevant and necessary questions; (d) Require the production of any document; (e) Take or cause to be taken extracts from or copies of such document; and take or cause to be taken the weight or measure of the scheduled commodities found in the premises; (f) Every fair price shop dealer when so required by such officer or person under sub-clause (i) shall allow access to premises, answer all questions to the best of his/her their knowledge and belief, produce the documents in their possession and allow extracts from or copies of any scheduled commodities found in the premises, to be taken; (g) For any contravention, attempt or abet the contravention of the provisions of this Order, the Inspecting officer may, enter premises of any rice mill, godown or private premises and verify the A and B registers or other records whatever prescribed in the Procurement policy ordered by the State Government, to check whether rice meant for Public Distribution System was purchased, sold or stored for sale /recycling. (h) Such officer, may in the course of such inspection at the premises where the fair price shop is operated or any premises where the scheduled commodities pertaining to Targeted Public Distribution System or other Government schemes are stored, search for and seize any commodity in respect of which he has reason to believe that any provision made by this Order has been or is being contravened; (i) The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to the Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to the Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed “before the appointing authority as proposed” for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions of authorization;” 15) Clause 20 (i) APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 has been upheld by this Court in “Modi Srinivasarao Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.500 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020)” and also held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated basing on a report submitted for 6-A proceedings. In the said judgment this Court has specifically held as follows: “When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018.” 16) In some cases, it has come to the notice of this Court that immediately after conducting inspection and after receipt of report from the Tahsildar, even without initiating any disciplinary proceedings by way of issuance of show cause notice, the authorities are stopping supply of essential commodities to the Fair Price Shop dealers. Under similar circumstances, a Full Bench of this Court in “ Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others , 2002 (1) ALD 577 ” wherein it was categorically held as follows: “A statutory authority, it is trite, must act within the four corners of the statute in terms of the statutory orders and procedure laid down to suspend the licence. As already noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the relevant orders have power to suspend the authorization or licence of the dealer. Without applying its mind and without taking recourse thereto, the Court should not normally permit the authorities, unless extraordinary situation exists, to allow them to do something indirectly, which they cannot do it directly. As already noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the relevant orders have power to suspend the authorization or licence of the dealer. Without applying its mind and without taking recourse thereto, the Court should not normally permit the authorities, unless extraordinary situation exists, to allow them to do something indirectly, which they cannot do it directly. If a broad proposition to this effect is laid down, the same, in a given case may amount to abuse of the process of law. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, acts sentinel qui vive and thus it has to protect the citizen from arbitrary and capricious action of the executive. If the licensing authority themselves upon application of mind come to the conclusion that the irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant suspension of his licence, it may do so. But, in our considered opinion, the authority without taking recourse to the said action, cannot, refuse to supply the essential commodities. 17) When the charge in the criminal case is unconnected with the functions of a Fair Price Shop, the concerned Fair Price Shop dealer cannot be terminated on account of pendency of the criminal case, as held by this Court in “ Banoth Ramesh Vs. State of A.P. , 2011 (1) ALT 485 ” 18) On receipt of a separate report from the Tahsildar for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Fair Price Shop dealer in pursuance of the inspection conducted in Fair Price Shop, if the Revenue Divisional Officer finds that the variations are within the permissible limit prescribed in Clause 29 of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, he shall drop the further disciplinary proceedings as against the dealer. For better appreciation, Clause 29 of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 is extracted hereunder. “29. Marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops: No prosecution shall be launched in certain mistakes / lapses / omission / irregularities indicated below (which are illustrative and not exhaustive) against the Fair Price Shop Dealers. (a) Minor variation in respect of single commodity upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month, (b) Mistake in mathematical totaling, clerical or error on account of device and accounting errors in the maintenance of prescribed registers. For the above irregularities, disciplinary action under the provisions of the Order shall be initiated under this Order. (a) Minor variation in respect of single commodity upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month, (b) Mistake in mathematical totaling, clerical or error on account of device and accounting errors in the maintenance of prescribed registers. For the above irregularities, disciplinary action under the provisions of the Order shall be initiated under this Order. In case, these mistakes / lapses / omissions / irregularities are found to be repetitive and there are reasons to believe that they are deliberate, appropriate action including launching of prosecution shall also be initiated at the discretion of the competent authority.” 19) Basing on the report received from the Tahsildar, if the Revenue Divisional Officer finds that the variations are beyond the permissible limit prescribed in Clause 29, he shall proceed further for initiation of disciplinary proceedings as against the dealer by way of issuing a show cause notice calling for an explanation within the prescribed time. 20) If the variations are beyond the marginal limits prescribed in Clause 29, the appointing authority/Revenue Divisional Officer shall issue a show cause notice to the Fair Price Shop dealer (either permanent or temporary, because the moment a dealer is appointed on temporary basis, he would discharge the duties of a permanent dealer and perform the duties which are being performed by a permanent dealer and shall continue to be a temporary dealer until a permanent dealer is appointed by way of notification) calling for explanation within 7 days as to why the authorization of the dealer cannot be placed under suspension. 21) A temporary Fair Price Shop dealer cannot be replaced by another temporary dealer as held by this Court on 18.02.2021 in “Kottakota Swathi Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh W.P.No.14864 of 2019”. 22) The appointing authority/Revenue Divisional Officer shall supply the report of the Tahsildar along with the show cause notice, which forms the basis of the charge, to the Fair Price Shop dealer as per the law laid down by this Court in “ M.Kalyani Vs. District Collector and Ors., , 2006 (5) ALD 796 ” wherein it is observed follows: In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No. 3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. District Collector and Ors., , 2006 (5) ALD 796 ” wherein it is observed follows: In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No. 3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. It is not in dispute that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to the appellant. In K. Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and Ors. 1996 (1) ALD 473 : 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP) , it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case effectively. It was further held that the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfil the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show-cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. In that case the petitioner therein had been given opportunity of personal hearing but even then the Court held that the opportunity was not real inasmuch as the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer.” 23) On receipt of the explanation from the Fair Price Shop Dealer, the appointing authority/RDO being a quasi judicial authority shall pass orders suspending the authorization of the Fair Price Shop dealer by giving cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending enquiry and also, if not satisfied over the explanation, shall assign the reasons for his dissatisfaction as held by this Court in “ K. Prabhavathi Vs. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others , 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 ” and “ K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) ” by referring to all the documents i.e. panchanama, explanation submitted by the dealer, and as well as statements of persons present at the time of inspection including the report of the Tahsildar which forms the basis for framing charges, in accordance with the provisions of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. “11. “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 24) The appointing authority/RDO after suspending the authorization of the dealer, shall conduct an independent enquiry into the charges framed against the Fair Price Shop dealer by giving a fresh notice calling the dealer to attend the enquiry and conclude the enquiry within 90 days from the date of suspension by recording the statements of Panchyatdars, officers, who were present at the time of inspection, and the necessary card holders including the witnesses referred by the dealer as held by this Court in “ Joint Collector, Kurnool Vs. A.Neelima , 1996 (1) APLJ 285 ” 25) The disciplinary authority has to prove the charges by conducting enquiry, examining the witnesses as well as by giving opportunity to the dealer to cross-examine the witnesses as held by this Court in “ Smt. B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others , 2015(4) ALT 572 ” 26) Recently in “Smt.M.Aruna Vs. The District Collector and others (W.A.No.139 of 2025 dated 18.03.2025”) the Division Bench of this Court reiterated the procedure for conducting enquiry, which reads thus: “since an order of cancellation of fair price shop dealer visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government Servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an „enquiry' which in our view must be as described infra. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government Servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an „enquiry' which in our view must be as described infra. Further, an enquiry pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing including recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, and in case where either card holders or other persons sent any compliant, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer and also an opportunity of cross-examination shall be given to such persons. Further, as stated above, the concerned authority has to supply all the reports to the dealer, on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer.” 27) After completion of enquiry, final order shall be passed by the RDO by assigning reasons duly dealing with each and every charge framed against the dealer as the disciplinary authority is under statutory obligation to pass reasoned order while cancelling the Fair price shop dealership as held in “ Pidikiti Sailaja Vs. State of A.P . , 2015(2) ALT 667 ” and “ C.Durga Srinivasa Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others , 2015(6) ALD 359 ” 28) If the Fair Price Shop Dealer is aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, he/she shall prefer appeal under Clause 24 of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, which reads thus: “24. Appeal Fair Price Shops: (a) “Collector (Civil Supplies)”of the districts in the State shall act an appellate authority for exercising the powers conferred upon and discharging the functions assigned to him/her under this Order. Appeal Fair Price Shops: (a) “Collector (Civil Supplies)”of the districts in the State shall act an appellate authority for exercising the powers conferred upon and discharging the functions assigned to him/her under this Order. Provided that appeal pending before the appellate authority appointed under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 shall be disposed of by such authority as if this Order had not been made; (b) any fair price shop dealer aggrieved by an order of the appointing authority concerned denying the issue or renewal of authorisation (License) to fair price shop dealer or cancellation of the authorisation (License) may appeal to “Collector (Civil Supplies)” the appellate authority, within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of the order and appellate authority shall, as far as practicable dispose of the appeal within a period of sixty (60) days; Provided that, once an appeal has been disposed of by the appellate authority, the time, for issue or renewal of the authorization (License) of the fair price shop dealer by the appointing authority concerned shall begin from the date of the decision of the appellate authority on appeal. (c) No appeal shall be disposed of by the appellate authorities unless the aggrieved person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (d) Pending disposal of an appeal, the appellate authority concerned may direct that the order under appeal shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of. (e) Any person aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority may file Revision before the District Collector of the District. Any person aggrieved by the orders of the 1st Revisionary Authority may file Revision before the Government”. 29) As the respondents are not following the above referred procedure while suspending or cancelling the Fair Price shop dealerships, this Court is flooded with several writ petitions. Therefore, at the cost of repetition, the procedure to be followed by the appointing authority for suspension or cancellation of Fair Price shop dealership, conducting enquiry, and passing final order is, briefly, summed up hereunder: (a) On receipt of credible information, the inspecting officials shall inspect the shop, record panchanama (Vide: Clause 20 of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 (referred supra)) (b) Thereafter, the inspecting officials shall submit report to the Tahsildar. (c) Basing on the said report submitted by the inspecting officials, the Tahsildar shall furnish two reports simultaneously, i.e. one report to the District Collector (CS) for initiation of 6A proceedings and another report to the appointing authority/Revenue Divisional Officer for initiating disciplinary proceedings. (Vide: Clause 20 (i) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.) (d) If at all, the Revenue Divisional Officer finds that the variations found in the report submitted by the Tahsildar are marginal or minor, and within the limits as in Clause 29 (extracted supra), he shall drop the proceedings. (e) If the variations are beyond the marginal limits prescribed in clause 29, the appointing authority/Revenue Divisional Officer shall issue a show-cause notice to the Fair Price Shop dealer calling for explanation within 7 days as to why the authorization of the dealer cannot be placed under suspension, duly supplying the report of the Tahsildar, which is the basis for framing the charges and other statements to the Fair Price Shop dealer to defend his case (Vide: M.Kalyani v. District Collector and Ors.) (f) After receiving the explanation from the Fair Price Shop Dealer, the RDO shall pass a reasoned order either for suspension or for dropping the proceedings (Vide: “K.Prabhavathi Vs. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others ” (referred supra) mentioning the provisions of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. If the authority is dissatisfied with the explanation, he may suspend the authorization of the dealer duly assigning the reason for his dissatisfaction (Vide: “K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra) till such time alternative arrangement shall be made for supply of essential commodities to the card holders. (g) After suspending the authorization of the Fair Price Shop dealer, the RDO shall conduct an enquiry into the charges framed against the Fair Price Shop dealer by giving a fresh notice calling the dealer to attend the enquiry and conclude the enquiry within 90 days from the date of suspension (Vide:“ Joint Collector, Kurnool Vs. A.Neelima (referred supra) )” (h) The procedure as to how the enquiry is to be conducted was discussed in detail in “ “Smt. B.Manjula Vs. A.Neelima (referred supra) )” (h) The procedure as to how the enquiry is to be conducted was discussed in detail in “ “Smt. B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others (referred supra) (i) After concluding enquiry, final order shall be passed by the RDO by assigning reasons duly dealing with each and every charge framed against the dealer as the disciplinary authority is under statutory obligation to pass reasoned order while cancelling the Fair price shop dealership. (Vide: “Pidikiti Sailaja Vs. State of A.P .” and “C.Durga Srinivasa Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ” (referred supra) (j) If the Fair Price Shop Dealer is aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, he/she shall prefer appeal under Clause 24 of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. (k) Any person aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority may file Revision before the District Collector of the District. Any person aggrieved by the orders of the 1 st Revisionary Authority may file Revision before the Government (Vide: Clause 24 (e) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. 30) Now, coming to the present cases, it is evident from the record that the impugned orders are passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer even without application of mind as to whether he is suspending or cancelling the petitioners' authorization. If at all, it is suspension, the same would be pending enquiry and if at all, it is cancellation, it would be after conducting detailed enquiry by furnishing all the documents including the report of the Tahsildar, which forms the basis for framing charges, and after giving notice to the petitioner as discussed supra. However, none of the procedure as stated supra has been followed by the respondents while passing the impugned orders dated 25.08.2025. Therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 31) Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned orders Rc.No.D/CS/62/2025, Rc.No.D/CS/62/2025 and Rc.No.D/CS/64/2025 dated 25.08.2025. No costs. Further, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh is directed to circulate this order to all the concerned with a direction to scrupulously follow the procedure as discussed above while suspending or cancelling the authorization of the dealership of the Fair Price Shop dealers. There shall be no order as to costs. 32) Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.