1 APHC010185742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 9795/2025 Between: 1. T RATNAMMA, W/O T.NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O.D.NO.3/428/17, BAHUJAN NAGAR, CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, , KADAPA, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , KADAPA REVENUE DIVISION, KADAPA, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KADAPA MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KADAPA MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 7. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, KADAPA MANDAL Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 8. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, PUTLAMPALLI, KADAPA 2 MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 9. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RIMS POLICE STATION, KADAPA TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in suspending my fair price shop authorization for the Fair Price Shop No. 1131119, Bahujan Nagar, Kadapa Town and Mandal, Y.S.R. District, vide suspension proceedings in Ref.No. RDOKDP- CVOSA/3/2025-SA(C1)- RDO-KDP, dated 29.01.2025, without, their being any panchanama or issuing show-cause notice as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also the well settled legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the suspension proceedings, in Ref.No. RDOKDP- CVOSA/3/2025-SA(C1)-RDO-KDP, dated 29.01.2025 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 to allot the essential commodities in my favour in so for as the Fair Price Shop No. 1131119, Bahujan Nagar, Kadapa Town & Mandal, Y.S.R. District by suspending the suspension proceedings in Ref.No. RDOKDP-CVOSA/3/2025-SA(C1)- RDO- KDP, dated 29.01.2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: The present Writ Petition 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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in suspending my fair price shop authorization for the Fair Price Shop No. 1131119, Bahujan Nagar, Kadapa Town and Mandal, Y.S.R. District, vide suspension proceedings in Ref.No. RDOKDP- CVOSA/3/2025-SA(C1)- RDO-KDP, dated 29.01.2025, without, their being any panchanama or issuing show-cause notice as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also the well settled legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the suspension proceedings, in Ref.No. RDOKDP- CVOSA/3/2025-SA(C1)-RDO-KDP, dated 29.01.2025 and pass such….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that initially, the authorization of fair price shop bearing No.1131119, Bahujan nagar, Kadapa town and mandal, Y.S.R. district was issued in favour of one A. Suneetha; subsequently, as the authorization of the said A. Suneetha was cancelled vide proceedings dated 30.05.2013, the petitioner herein submitted an application for temporary dealership and was allotted the aforesaid shop vide proceedings dated 15.06.2013 of the 4th respondent on temporary basis. Ever since, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint. 5 3. While the matter stood thus, the respondent No.6 along with respondent Nos.7 to 9 visited the petitioner’s fair price shop on 03.01.2025 for inspection and after verifying the stock, have confirmed that the stock is intact. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to cardholders without any complaint, the respondent authorities are visiting the petitioner’s fair price shop frequently and are threatening the petitioner to leave the fair price shop so that they could allot the same to another person of their choice. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the 4th respondent, by solely relying upon the report of the Tahsildar dated 28.01.2025, has suspended the petitioner’s dealership of the fair price shop No.1131119, Bahujan nagar, Putlampalli, Kadapa mandal pending enquiry, vide the impugned proceedings dated 29.01.2025. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in suspending the petitioner’s authorization of her fair price shop without issuing any show cause notice, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 01.05.2025, this Court has passed the following interim order: “Therefore, there shall be an interim suspension of the proceedings dated 29.01.2025 issued by the 4th respondent until further orders. Further, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No.1131119 of YSR Kadapa District.” 6 5. Heard Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 29.01.2025, it can be observed that after inspecting the petitioner’s fair price shop, the Tahsildar, Kadapa has submitted a report that the brother of the petitioner herein is performing all the transactions on behalf of the petitioner as binamee and hence, recommended for suspension of the petitioner’s dealership. Relying upon the same, the temporary fair price shop dealership of the petitioner herein of the shop No.1131119, Bahujan nagar, Putlampalli, Kadapa mandal was suspended pending enquiry. But, nowhere in the impugned proceedings, the 4th respondent has stated as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking her explanation, which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 7. The fundamental rules of natural justice have become firmly embedded in modern jurisprudence and the same may be broadly categorized under the heads of: “(1) Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, i.e. no one shall be a judge in his own case, or “Doctrine of Bias”. (2) Audi alteram partem i.e. Right of hearing. (3) Reasoned decision/Speaking order.” 7 8. In present case, this Court is primarily concerned with the second principle, viz., audi alteram partem. “Audi alteram partem” is one of the most important aspects of the principles of natural justice which literally means “to hear the other side”. This means the necessity to provide a fair hearing i.e. affording opportunity to the person concerned to explain his position before such person is subjected to any adverse action so that he may be able to explain the facts and circumstances and convince the authorities concerned that such a contemplated or proposed adverse action is not called for. This principle of audi alteram partem requires that notice must be given to the person before any adverse action is taken and such notice cannot be vague and ambiguous to the proposed action to be taken so as to apprise the authorities determinatively the cases he has to meet. In other words, the person concerned must be informed of the charges and allegations clearly against him so that he may be able to fully meet these allegations and defend himself. 9. In the case on hand, though the petitioner is a temporary dealer, she was deprived of an opportunity of hearing. Further, the respondent authorities have not issued any show cause notice to the petitioner seeking her explanation, before taking adverse action against her. It can also be observed that, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned proceedings, solely basing upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Kadapa mandal. Earlier, a similar 8 question came up before the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Oleti Tirupathamma’s case (1 supra) wherein the Court 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 authorisation 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. In the event an order of suspension of licence is passed, the authorities will have to make an alternative arrangement. But, in a case of this nature, the card holders would be the worst sufferers inasmuch their essential commodities would not be supplied to them at all.” 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the proceedings dated 29.01.2025 of the 4th respondent are hereby set-aside. However, if necessary, the respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, by duly following the principles of natural justice. It is 9 needless to state that till such time, the respondent authorities shall provide essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop bearing No.1131119, Bahujan nagar, Putlampalli, Kadapa mandal. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :09.09.2025. Gss