APHC010295612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 15015/2025 Between: 1. MENDA VARADA RAJULU, S/O SIMMAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER. R/O NAIRA VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. JOINT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAMDISTRICT. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, O/O TAHSILDAR, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM 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 proceedings in Rc.No.832/2025/CS, dt. 22.05.2025 passed by the 3RD respondent thereby cancelled the 2 VS,J W.P.No.15015 of 2025 authorization of the petitioners Fair Price Shop No.0119013 situated in Naira Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without issuing show cause notice and without conducting enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 22.05.2025 and direct the respondents to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders and to pass 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 to suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.832/2025/CS, dt. 22.05.2025 passed by the 3RD respondent and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 0119013 situated in Naira Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.15015 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.832/2025/CS, dt. 22.05.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent thereby cancelled the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0119013 situated in Naira Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without issuing show cause notice and without conducting enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 22.05.2025 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders.…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.0119013 situated in Naira Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District by the then 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.453/2023/CS, dated 29.12.2023. The petitioner‟s authorization is subsisting till 31.03.2025. The petitioner has been running the said Fair Price Shop without any adverse remarks or complaints from the cardholders at any point of time. b) While the things stood thus, due to change of the Government in the State of Andhra Pradesh and local village political pressure, the respondents conducted a surprise check over the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop on 09.07.2024 and allegedly found some variations. Thereafter, basing on a 4 VS,J W.P.No.15015 of 2025 report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a show- cause notice on 29.07.2024 vide Rc.No.805/24/CS, which was served on the petitioner by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) on 16.08.2024, framing three charges against the petitioner and calling for an explanation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.08.2024 denying the charges framed against him and requested revocation of the show-cause issued in his favour. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.805/2024/CS, dated 13.09.2024, suspending the petitioner‟s authorization even without considering his explanation dated 21.08.2024 and without recording reasons for suspension of the authorization, simply stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent failed to conduct a detailed enquiry in the presence of the cardholders and did not furnish the alleged report dated 10.07.2024 issued by the 4th respondent along with the show-cause notice dated 29.07.2024. Aggrieved by the suspension proceedings dated 13.09.2024, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23553 of 2024, wherein this Court initially granted interim suspension of the proceedings dated 13.09.2024 vide order dated 19.10.2024. Thereafter, the said writ petition was allowed on 03.07.2025 by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 13.09.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent and directing the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner on payment of the necessary fee. 5 VS,J W.P.No.15015 of 2025 d) While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent, allegedly at the instance of local village political leaders, again issued a notice dated 26.04.2025 directing the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry on 29.04.2025 on the allegation that the petitioner was working as a driver at Varun Motors Private Limited, Srikakulam, in addition to holding the post of Fair Price Shop dealer. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the enquiry before the 3rd respondent and submitted his explanation stating that earlier he worked as a driver on part-time basis to meet medical expenses of his old aged parents who were suffering with health issues and never neglected his duties as Fair Price Shop dealer. Despite this, the 3rd respondent straight away cancelled the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop authorization vide proceedings dated 22.05.2025 stating that the petitioner was holding the post of driver in Varun Motors, Srikakulam, in addition to working as Fair Price Shop dealer since 02.09.2021. e) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondents, without issuing any show-cause notice calling for explanation, straight away cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization solely on the ground that he has been holding the post of driver at Varun Motors in addition to working as Fair Price Shop dealer since 02.09.2021. Challenging the impugned cancellation order dated 22.05.2025, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 6 VS,J W.P.No.15015 of 2025 3. Today, when the matter came up for admission on 24.06.2025, this Court passed the following interim order: “….there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned order vide Rc.No.832/2025 CS, dated 22.05.2025, issued by the 3rd respondent.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that except referring to G.O.Ms.No.15, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 01.08.2018, the office notice Rc.No.832/2025CS, dated 26.04.2025 and the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 29.04.2025, no where it is mentioned whether any enquiry was conducted regarding the petitioner holding the post of Driver at Varun Motors, Srikakulam in addition to working as Fair Price Shop dealer since 02.09.2021. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer by the then 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.453/2023/CS, dated 29.12.2023, and that the said shop was handed over to him on 01.02.2024. As such, the respondents had no right to issue the show-cause notice calling for explanation regarding the petitioner holding the post of driver at Varun Motors prior his appointment i.e., since 02.09.2021. It is also the petitioner‟s case that admittedly no enquiry was conducted by the respondents before cancelling the petitioner‟s authorization, which in fact is a major penalty 7 VS,J W.P.No.15015 of 2025 and which cannot be imposed without conducting an appropriate enquiry as required under law. 6. This Court refers to the decision in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court held: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop 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 an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra. 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 also supply 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 upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 8 VS,J W.P.No.15015 of 2025 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.” 7. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned cancellation order issued by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable, as it was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without giving the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his case, as required under law. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.832/2025 CS, dated 22.05.2025. Consequently, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner until and unless any further complaints are made against the petitioner. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not neglect his duties in running the Fair Price Shop. The respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate action if any disturbances are caused in this regard. The petitioner is directed to given an undertaking before the concerned authorities that he would maintain the Fair Price Shop in accordance with the rules and regulations. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 08.10.2025 KGR