APHC010123862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6476/2025 Between: B Umadevi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA 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 orders vide Rc.No.804/2025/C dt.06.03.2025 passed by the 4th respondent in canceling the petitioner's F.P. Shop authorization in respect of F.P. Shop No.1258010, P Narasapuram Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District without affording personal hearing, without conducting any independent enquiry and without following any sort of procedure is illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P Shop dealership of F.P. shop No.1258010, P 2 JS,J W.P.No.6476/2025 Narasapuram Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District and to pass…” 2. The petitioner is the permanent dealer of fair price shop No.1258010 of P. Narasapuram Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District and his authorization is valid up to 31.03.2026. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed on 17.02.2025 directing the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent, without conducting enquiry as per clause 8(4) of Control Orders, 2018 and without affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop which is in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Kalyani vs. District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and Others 1 and B. Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool2. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in M. Kalyani V. District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and Others, held that: “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 1 2006 (5) ALD 796 (DB) 2 2015 (3) ALD 617 3 JS,J W.P.No.6476/2025 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 fulfill 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. In S. Malla Reddy v. M. Vijayalakshmi and Others, 2005 (3) ALT 100=2005 (5) ALD (NOC) 174, this Court held that the authorization of fair price shop could not have been cancelled on the basis of vague notice.” 5. Further, this Court in B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, observed as follows:- “10. An enquiry pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. The licensing/disciplinary authority shall also4supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry. 11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying 4 JS,J W.P.No.6476/2025 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. 12. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making 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. As regards the second mandatory requirement under sub- clause (5) of Clause 5, namely; reasons to be recorded in writing, reasons constitute the heart and soul of a decision. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court, while dealing with an order passed by the Central Government under Rule 55 of the A.P. Mineral Concession Rules 1960, emphasized on the5need for giving reasons in support of the order. The Supreme Court inter alia held that the condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory Court to keep the Tribunals within bounds.” 6. This Court while disposing the W.P.No.3568 of 2025 has observed that no disciplinary action was taken because the variation of stock is too small above the permissible limits. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 03.03.2025 and 06.02.2025. The respondents, without giving an opportunity of substantiating her explanation, cannot pass an order which adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. 7. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide RC.No.804/2025/C dated 06.03.2025, are hereby set-side by directing the 5 JS,J W.P.No.6476/2025 respondents to continue the petitioner’s fair price shop No.1258010 of P. Narasapuram Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. However, liberty is given to the respondents to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 13.03.2025 KAS 6 JS,J W.P.No.6476/2025 108 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6476/2025 Date: 13.03.2025 KAS