APHC010115272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5828/2025 Between: Smt. Shailaja, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES This Court made the following: 2 JS,J W.P.No.5828/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.61/2025/C dated 28.02.2025 by terminating the petitioner to hold F.P Shop.No.1261003, Virupasamudram Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal bearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop.No.1261003, Virupasamudram Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District and pass…” 2. The petitioner is a temporary dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1261003 of Virupasamudram Vilage, Amarapuramu mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. As the respondents were not allotting the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16343 of 2024. The writ petition was disposed of on 29.07.2024 by directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop and allowed the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer. 3. Thereafter, the respondents had visited the petitioner’s shop and conducted panchanama on 16.11.2024 and found variation in the stock. Without issuing suspension order/cancellation order, the respondents 3 JS,J W.P.No.5828/2025 stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s shop. The petitioner again approached this Court and filed W.P.No.27349 of 2024 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 25.11.2024 by holding that as the respondents had not issued any suspension order/cancellation order cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to continue his fair price shop. 4. The case of the petitioner is that basing on the report submitted by the 5th respondent on 16.11.2024, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.01.2025 calling for explanation. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 31.01.2025. The 3rd respondent, without giving reasonable opportunity, has terminated the dealership of the petitioner’s fair price shop. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the action taken by the administrative authority would adversely affect the individual, then the person who is likely to be affected by such action is entitled to a reasonable opportunity and, therefore, the impugned termination order passed by the 3rd respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order passed in B. Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and Others1 wherein this Court held as under: “11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making 12015 (3) ALD 617 4 JS,J W.P.No.5828/2025 personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of „enquiry‟ which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing. 15. Unfortunately, a perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.3 has not even attempted to hold an enquiry and he has allowed himself to be swayed away by the report of the Tahsildar, Gonegandla without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered by the petitioner. Unless the petitioner is given an opportunity of substantiating her explanation, it would be a grave travesty of justice to reject her explanation without holding an enquiry. As respondent No.3 has not followed this procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The orders of respondent Nos.2 and 1, which confirmed the order of respondent No.3 are also set-aside. The fair price shop authorization of the petitioner stands restored and she shall be permitted to function as the fair price shop dealer. This order, however, will not prevent respondent No.3 from holding a detailed enquiry in the light of the observations made herein before and pass a fresh order.” 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner has taken the plea of shortage of stock at MLS point for the first time. He has not made such complaint earlier. The impugned termination orders were passed after examining the explanation of the petitioner in detail. He would further submit that the respondents have terminated the petitioner by making an alternate arrangement. 7. When a specific plea was taken that the petitioner is receiving less stock from MLS point, the respondent, instead of relying on the report sent by the Subordinate Officer, ought to have conducted a detail enquiry by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the respondents have failed to consider the explanation of the petitioner with reference to the charges 5 JS,J W.P.No.5828/2025 framed against him, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in law and accordingly are liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 28.02.2025 with a direction to the respondents to follow the due procedure by giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasonable order as contemplated under law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 28.03.2025 JLV 6 JS,J W.P.No.5828/2025 168 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5828/2025 Date: 28.03.2025 JLV