1 APHC010294882021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17413/2021 Between: 1. SUMITHARAMMA, W/O. RAMABHUPAL REDDY, 50Y, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 1382150, R/O. KURNOOL URBAN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL. 3. JOINTCOLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, KURNOOL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. TAHSILDAR, KURNOOL MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order passed by the 2nd 2 respondent through petitioner appeal No. CS3/115/2020 dated 03.07.2020, thereby dismissing his appeal by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.Rc.CS.3/124/2019 dated 23.03.2020, thereby cancelling petitioner authorization for the Shop No.I382150 of Kumool(urban), Kurnool District, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution Control Order, 2008 and offends Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to set- aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No CS3/115/2020 dated 03.07.2020 for the petitioner as Fair Price Shop No.1382150 of Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District and restore the petitioner authorization for distribution of commodities to the card holders and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to suspend the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. CS3/115/2020 dated 03.07.2020 for the petitioner Fair. Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382150 of Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District and restore the petitioner authorization for distribution of commodities to the card holders, pending disposal of the Main Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SANTHISREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the 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 order passed by the 2nd respondent through petitioner appeal No. CS3/115/2020 dated 03.07.2020, thereby dismissing his appeal by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.Rc.CS.3/124/2019 dated 23.03.2020, thereby cancelling petitioner authorization for the Shop No.I382150 of Kumool(urban), Kurnool District, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution Control Order, 2008 and offends Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to set-aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No CS3/115/2020 dated 03.07.2020 for the petitioner as Fair Price Shop No.1382150 of Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District and restore the petitioner authorization for distribution of commodities to the card holders and to pass such….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the year 2001 for the shop No.1382150 of Kurnool district and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders ever since, without there being any complaint. 3. While the matter stood thus, due to alleged political pressures, the 5th respondent has inspected the petitioner‟s fair price shop on 15.10.2019 alleging that certain complaints were made against the petitioner and upon inspection, the respondent officials found some discrepancies in the ground stock. Subsequently, the 5th respondent has submitted a report to the 2nd respondent with a request to take action against the petitioner, pursuant to 4 which a show cause notice dated 28.10.2019 was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation from the petitioner as to why her authorization of the fair price shop should not be cancelled. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted her explanation duly denying the allegations leveled against her. 4. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent directed the 5th respondent to obtain a detailed enquiry report from the 4th respondent; accordingly, the 4th respondent has submitted his report to the 3rd respondent basing on which, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.Rc.Cs.3/124/2019, dated 23.03.2020 cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization of the fair price shop, which was also confirmed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 03.07.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner herein committed grave irregularities in maintenance of the fair price shop and upon certain complaints, the respondent officials have inspected the petitioner‟s fair price shop and certain excess stocks were found. During the inspection, one cardholder was present at the scene who stated that though the his biometrics were taken for 15 kilograms of rice, the petitioner supplied only 4 kilograms of rice. As the respondent authorities found that the petitioner was indulging in malpractices in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, they have seized all the excess stock under a cover of panchanama. As contemplated under clause 8(4) of the APSTPDS Control Order, 2018, the 4th respondent has conducted a detailed enquiry into the 5 matter and subsequently, submitted a report to the 3rd respondent recommending for further action. The 3rd respondent, after verifying the aforesaid report, sought explanation from the petitioner for the charges framed against her and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted her explanation. Having found the explanation unconvincing, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.03.2020, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. 6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the said proceedings dated 23.03.2020 were challenged before the 2nd respondent by way of an appeal, wherein, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of submitting his written explanation through an advocate and after considering the same, the 2nd respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 03.07.2020. It is further stated that as the respondent authorities have followed the procedures stipulated under law in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner‟s fair price shop and also the provisions prescribed in the APSTPDS Control Order, 2018, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard Sri. N. Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.3 did not choose to conduct detailed enquiry as contemplated under the Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short “the Control Order, 2018”) as well as no reasons were assigned as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 before passing the 6 impugned order. Moreover, Respondent No.3 neither conducted any enquiry nor examined the persons concerned to ascertain the genuineness of cause as explained in the explanation by the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned proceedings, without assigning any reasons pursuant to the explanation as submitted under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, is untenable 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that except recording the statement of the petitioner, neither card holders nor officers concerned were examined pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the subject impugned proceedings lacks the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to contradict the same. Without taking into consideration the above points into consideration, the 2nd respondent has simply dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to set-aside the order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and also the proceedings dated 22.03.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reiterated the contentions narrated in their counter affidavit as extracted above. He further submits that the Respondents framed the charges and informed the same to the petitioner by way of notice and received the explanation which was duly considered and opined that the same is not satisfactory. Therefore, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity and personal hearing. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondents have not conducted enquiry and have 7 not assigned any reasons. He further submits that the impugned order of Respondent No.3 is in detail and includes the variations found during inspection and the contents raised in the petitioner‟s explanation were considered and rejected as the same were not satisfactory, by duly assigning reasons. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be entitled to agitate the impugned proceedings that they were issued without proper enquiry and without assigning any reasons. Hence requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 11. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-Clause(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 which has been held to be mandatory by this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1 observed as extracted hereunder: “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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 8 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 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. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the respondent No.3 is without considering the explanation of the petitioner and no reasons were assigned and no enquiry was conducted in relation to the objections and contentions raised in the explanation, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others2, it was observed as under: “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 9 should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 13. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 14. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 10 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.07.2020 of the 2nd respondent and the proceedings dated 23.03.2020 are set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to record reasons thereof. It is need less to state that the respondents shall restore the authorization of the petitioner‟s fair price shop bearing No.1382150 of Kurnool (urban), Kurnool District till finalization of proceedings, if an enquiry is conducted afresh. 16. 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 :10.09.2025 Gss