APHC010119482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6566/2025 Between: Bheemi Reddy Suhasini ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.D1CS/398/2024 dated 06.05.2024, without prior notice, is illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as the FP Shop Dealer for Shop No.1285100 situated at Janashakthi Nagar, Anantapuramu Urban Mandal, Anantapuramu District, and pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1285100 of Janashakthi Nagar, Anantapuramu Urban and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. Basing on the adverse complaints in the e- Vigil App and upon investigation by the flying squad team, the 2nd 2 respondent has issued impugned suspension cum show cause notice, dated 06.05.2024 alleging that the petitioner has participated in election campaign conducted by YSR party on 05.05.2024. 3. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that without issuing show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing on the said allegations raised in e-Vigil App, the disciplinary authority has straight away suspended the authorization of the petitioner, which is in violation of the decision of this Court in S. Malla Reddy vs M. Vijayalakshmi and others1. 4. In S.Malla Reddy’s case (referred supra), this Court held as follows: “4. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that no show cause notice was ever served on the writ petitioner calling upon the writ petitioner that for the charges levelled against her, why her authorization be not cancelled. This aspect of the matter was taken notice of by learned single Judge. The relevant Distribution Order itself requires issuance of show cause notice to the fair price shop dealer in case for any reason, the authorization is sought to be cancelled. In other words, the authorization cannot be cancelled without following the principles of natural justice, which includes issuance of show cause notice mentioning therein the various charges on which the authorization is sought to be cancelled, calling upon the fair price shop dealer to submit his/her explanation to the show cause notice and then holding an enquiry and passing appropriate orders after hearing the fair price shop dealer. In the instant case, no show cause notice was issued for cancellation of the authorization. The show cause notice issued was only for suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, on that basis, further action for cancelling the authorization could not have been taken without following the procedure established in law and for that reason, the order of cancellation is rendered bad in law. There will be no need for the Joint Collector to take up the appeal before him since the order of cancellation is to be set aside having been passed without following the principles of natural justice.” 1 2005 (3) ALT 300 3 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that clause 12(s) of the Control Order, 2018 specifically states that no fair price shop dealer shall take part in any political activities directly or indirectly, which would hamper the public distribution system. Since the petitioner has participated in the election campaign, the impugned notice was issued cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop. 6. It is clear from the impugned proceedings, dated 06.05.2024 that on the complaint received by the e-Vigil APP, dated 05.05.2024, the respondent authorities have issued the said suspension cum show cause notice, which is issued in violation of principles of natural justice. Before issuing the impugned notice, the respondent ought to have given an opportunity by calling for explanation, moreover, the petitioner, who is running fair price shop since 2009 and she cannot be thrown out without following the procedure under law. 7. The impugned order is expressly illegal, as no order of removal can be passed without show cause notice as held by this Court in S.Malla Reddy’s case (referred supra). A perusal of the Clause 12(s) of the Control Order indicates that mere participation in political campaign does not ipso facto enable the authority to suspend or cancel the dealership unless such participation resulted in hampering the distribution system. Whereas no such observation has been made in the impugned order that the participation of the petitioner in the 4 political campaign resulted in hampering of distribution system, even if the allegation is treated as true, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.D1CS/398/2024, dated 06.05.2024 and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. However, it is open to the respondent authorities to take action by following the due procedure contemplated under law. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date : 18.03.2025 SPP 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.6566 of 2025 Date : 18.03.2025 SPP