Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10674 (AP)

D V RAMANA v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/6118/2025 · 2025-03-11

Sumathi Jagadam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010121622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6118/2025 Between: D V Ramana ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.1338041 of Pathakandukur Village, Allagadda Mandal, Nandyal District, since 20 years. On the report submitted by the 4th respondent/Tahsildar, impugned show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer on 30.01.2025, for which an explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 10.02.2025. The respondents, without affording opportunity of personal 2 JS,J W.P.No.6118/2025 hearing, have passed the impugned order of suspension which is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. 2. 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 and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/193/2025, dated 10.02.2025, with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation made by the petitioner on 10.02.2025, and pass a reasonable order afresh, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till such time, the respondents are directed to restore the authorization 3 JS,J W.P.No.6118/2025 of the petitioner’s fair price No.1338041 of Pathakandukuru Village of Allagadda Mandal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 11.03.2025 KAS 4 JS,J W.P.No.6118/2025 220 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6118/2025 Date: 11.03.2025 KAS 5 JS,J W.P.No.6118/2025