APHC010290402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) S TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 14607 OF 2025 Between: K.Vijay Kumar,, S/o. K.Linganna, Aged about 42 years, Occ- FP Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1258030, Goravanahalli, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District. / ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District at Puttaparthy Ananthapur District. 3. The Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District at Putaparthy, Ananthapur District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 5. The Tahsildar, Parigi Mandal, Ananthapur District At Velagapudi, Erstwhile Erstwhile Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile ...Respondents 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 4 respondent in his proceedings Rc. No. 1676/2025/C dated 31.05.2025 in terminating the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner FP Shop No. 1258030 of Goravanahalli, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law without affording personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violative of Articles 14,19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside ,, the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of FP Shop No. 1258030 of Goravanahalli, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District. lA 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 to direct the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair FP Shop No. 1258030 of Goravanahalli, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District by suspending the proceedings vide Rc.No. 1676/2025/C dated 31.05.2025 issued by the 4th respondent pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES . The Court made the following order: r APHC010290402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14607/2025 Between: 1.K.VIJAY KUMAR,, S/0. K.LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC- FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1258030, GORAVANAHALLI, H/0. MODA VILLAGE, PARIGI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT SECRETARY, BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILEANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 5.THE TAHSILDAR, PARIGI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 4 respondent in his proceedings Rc.No. 1676/2025/C dated 31.05.2025 in terminating the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner FP Shop No.1258030 Goravanahalli, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi of Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law without affording personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violative of Articles 14,19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of FP Shop No.1258030 of Goravanahalli, H/o. Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District and pass Moda lA 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 fair FP Shop No.1258030 of Goravanahalli, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District by suspending proceedings vide Rc.No. 1676/2025/C dated 31.05.2025 issued by the respondent pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: the 4th pass 3 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “...io issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 4‘^ respondent in his proceedings Rc.No. 1676/2025/C dated 31.05.2025 in terminating the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner FP Shop No. 1258030 of Goravanahalli, Fl/o. Moda Village, ParigI Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law without affording personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural Justice and violation of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of FP Shop No. 1258030 of Goravanahalli, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District and pass any other order....” The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1258030 of Goravanahalli, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Erstwhile Ananthapur District, by the 4*^ respondent vide proceedings RC.595/2008/C dated 30.08.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner’s authorization was extended from time to time. The petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the card holders and has been running the fair price shop without any complaints either from the cardholders or from the 2. concerned authorities. While the matter being so, on 08.05.2025, the staff of the 5**^ respondent 3. visited the petitioner’s shop at about 5:00 P.M and found that there is a excess fortified rice MDM 43 Kgs (+0.36%) and 26 (1/2 Kg) packets of sugar , ■, . ' " 4 (+3.75%). Accordingly, they seized the stock and handed over to VRO after duly conducting a panchanama. Based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the 4*^^ respondent issued show cause notice on 16.05.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner, for which the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 23.05.2025, specifically stating that excess stock of rice is within the permissible limits of the marginal variation as per clause 29(a) of APSTPDS, Order 2018. With regard to the 26 packets of K: Kg sugar, he specifically stated that the card holders have appended their thumb by paying amounts prior to the said inspection and kept their stock in the shop, stating that the same would be collected while returning from Hindupur. In the meanwhile, the inspection was conducted by the respondent authorities. The petitioner also specifically mentioned the names of the card holders whose stock was available in the fair price shop. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the same, the respondents, even without conducting an enquiry by recordingthe statements of the card holders whose stock was available in the petitioner’s fair price shop, have straightaway passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s authorization vide Rc.No.1676/2025/C dated 31.05.2025. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 19.06.2025, this Court passed the following interim order: “The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings in Rc.No.1676/2025/C, dated 31.05.2025 issued by Respondent No.4, whereby and whereunder the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner F.P.Shop No. 1258030 of Goravanahalll, H/o. Moda Village, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (erstwhile Ananthapur District) 5 was terminated on various grounds, one of the grounds taken by Respondent No. 4 is that the petitioner did not pay any authorization fee seeking renewal. On perusal of the documents filed along with the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1000/- on 06.08.2024 for renewal of his authorization. However, Respondent No.4 without taking into consideration of the said amount paid by the petitioner for renewal of authorization, passed impugned order on the ground that the petitioner subsequently paid Rs.500/- towards renewal of authorization on 03.03.2025. Prima-facie, the finding given by Respondent No.4 in the impugned order is not sustainable. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already paid renewal fee on 06.08.2024. In view of the same, there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned order passed by Respondent No.4. Apart from the same. Respondent No.4, while passing the impugned order did not provide opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, so that said order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Post the matter after four (4) weeks. In the meantime, the Respondents are directed to file counter affidavit.” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant 6. Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has stated that as per clause 12 (e) of APSTPDS, Order 2018, the fair price shop dealers shall not retain the scheduled commodities after taking authentication of the beneficiaries through electronic Point of Sale. In view of the same, the petitioner is not permitted to keep the essential commodities of the card holders who have already paid the amounts arid further argued that as per 7. 6 P clause 12 (p)(3), the petitioner is supposed to make available scheduled commodities physically as per the balances shown in the electronic Point of Sale generated prints to cross check the variation (excess/deficit) in stocks. But as the petitioner has failed to comply with both the provisions, the present impugned proceedings have been issued by the 4^'^ respondent herein. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is apparent that except stating that the explanation submitted regarding excess of 26 (1/2 Kg) packets of sugar is not satisfactory and the fair price shop dealer should not keep stock issued to the card holders, which is in violation of clause 12 (p)(3) and clause 29 of APSTPDS, Order 2018, the respondents have not assigned any reasons and the impugned proceedings does not reveal as to whether they have conducted any enquiry by recording the statements of the card holders whose names were specifically mentioned in the petitioner’s explanation. Even the 4**^ respondent has not specified the exact provision under which the fair price shop dealer should not keep the stock issued to the card holders in his shop, which in fact is clause 12(e). The petitioner has relied upon an order dated 18.03.2025, passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025, wherein similar issue was considered. In the said order the Division Bench has held as under: “10. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since order of cancellation of fair price shop dealer visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government Servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of 8. 9. an an 7 ‘enquiry’ which in our view must be as described infra. Further, an enquiry presupposes an opportunity of personal hearing including recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, and where either card holders or other persons sent any compliant, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer and also an opportunity of cross-examination shall be given to such persons. Further, as stated above, the concerned authority has to supply all the reports to the dealer, on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, the RDO has relied on the report of the tahsildar but the said report, as could be seen, was not supplied to the petitioner/appellant herein and also the recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses was not done. Therefore, without adhering to such procedure, issuing orders in such amounts to passing the orders behind the back of the in case a manner dealer/petitioner. 11. Unfortunately, a perusal of the RDO’s order shows that he has not attempted to hold an independent enquiry and he has allowed himself to be swayed away by the report of the Tahsildar, without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered by the petitioner/appellant herein. The learned single judge failed to appreciate the said aspects while dismissing the writ petition. As the respondent no.3 has not followed the said procedure and passed the order in violation of the order vide proceedings principles of natural justice, D.Dis.No.(A3)/2707/2009 dated 18.08.2009, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. /\s a corollary, the orders of the respondent no. 2 & 1 vide proceedings dated 20.08.2010 and 10.02.2013 respectively, were also set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration in light of the observations made herein. ” As the petitioner’s case falls under similar circumstances and as the 10. explanation submitted by the petitioner was not properly considered by the respondents by assigning proper reasoning, the present writ petition also «: ' ■/! 8 deserves to be allowed in similar lines of the aforesaid order of the Division bench. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed by setting-aside the impugned cancellation orders dated 31.05.2025, and the matter is remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration in the light of the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. 11. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANl^GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat 1. The Principal Secretary, Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District at Puttaparthy Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 3. The Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District at Putaparthy, Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 5. The Tahsildar, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District 6. One CC to Sri. P Narahari Babu Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP For Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. AL HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 14607 OF 2025 ?isFP m X. o ¥ ^ ^ Current section ^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS