APHC010295172020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19543 OF 2020 Between: A. Rudrappa,, S/o. Parsmeshwarappa, Age 57 years, Occ F.P.Shop Dealer F.P.Shop.No.1218031, Anantapur District. R/o. Kadarampalli Village, Raydurg Mandal ...Petitioner AND 1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, A P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 3. The Joint Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Kalyandurg, Anantapur District. 5. The Tahsildar, Raydurg Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of 3'^ respondent vide Rc.No.K 11/3320/2019 dated 12.05.2020 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner at Kadirampalli village (F.P. Shop No. 1218031) H/o Nagireddy palli of Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law as illegal. i arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of *A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same and direct the 2"^ respondent to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership at KadirampalH village (F.P. Shop No. 1218031) H/o Nagireddy palli of Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District. (Corrected main prayer and docket are received as per court order dated 5.01.2022 in I.A. No. 1/2021) lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Final order dated 12.05.2020 vide Rc.No.K 11/3320/2019 passed by Respondent No.3 and direct the respondents to permit the Petitioner to run the F.P. Shop. No. 1218031 of Kadiram Palli Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District by supplying essential commodities. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.liGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 2 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010295172020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] r TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19543/2020 Between: 1.A. RUDRAPPA,, S/0. PARSMESHWARAPPA, AGE 57 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP.NO.1218031, R/0. KADARAMPALLl VILLAGE, RAYDURG MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. KALYANDURG, 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5.THE TAHSILDAR, RAYDURG MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 toto issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of 3rd respondent vide I 2 VS,J W.P.No.19543 of2020 ' Rc.No.K 11/3320/2019 dated 12.05.2020 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner at Kadirampalli village (F.P. Shop No. 1218031) H/o Nagireddy palli of Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 and violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership at Kadirampalli village (F.P. Shop No. 1218031) H/o Nagireddy palli of Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 of 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.K 11/3320/2019 dated 12.05.2020 by directing the 5th respondent to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop at E Kadirampalli village (F.P. Shop No. 1218031) H/o Nagireddy palli of Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District, pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to pass lA 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 To receive corrected copies of Main Petition and main Docket for proper adjudication of above case and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.19543 of2020 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “....to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring the proceedings of 3'^ respondent vide Rc.No.K 11/3320/2019 dated 12.05.2020 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner at Kadirampalli village (F.P.Shop NO.1218031) H/o Nagireddy palli of Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A. P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same and direct the 2""^ respondent to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. Shop Dealership at Kadirampalli Village (F.P. Shop No.1218031) H/o Nagireddy palli of Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District...” The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1218031, H/o Nagireddy palli of Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapur District, vide proceedings of the 4*"^ respondent dated 26.06.2014. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing the commodities to the cardholders without any complaints, either from the cardholders or the 2. respondent authorities. While the matter being so, on 05.11.2019, basing on a report submitted by the 5*^ respondent, the 3'"' respondent issued a show-cause notice vide proceedings dated 22.01.2019, framing charges against the petitioner. After receiving the said show-cause notice, the petitioner made enquiries and came to know that the respondent has submitted a report 3. I 4 VS,J W.P.No.19543 of2020 . to the respondent basing on the complaint made by the Tahsildar. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation to the said show-cause notice on 07.02.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3'"'^ respondent, without appreciating the facts on record, without even offering any personal hearing, and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has passed the impugned cancellation orders on 12.05.2020. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. The 5*^ respondent has filed a detailed counter duly stating that during the surprise visit of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop, they have noticed certain variations in the stock. The enquriy team has also noticed that the petitioner was doing business at D.No.2-71 instead of the sanctioned Door No.2-51 as mentioned in the authorization dated 28.06.2014. As the petitioner has failed to distribute the essential commodities properly to the cardholders allotted to that fair price shop, the enquiry team has seized the ground balance stock along with the e-POS machine and weighing machine available in the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. Hence, a report was submitted to the Joint-Collector, Anantapur to take the case on file under Section 6-A of E.C. Act, 1955, as the Fair Price Shop dealer was found to be involved in diversion of the scheduled commodities in contravention of Clause 12 (P3) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, and to confiscate the entire seized stock to the Government or to pass orders as deemed fit, and also to initiate disciplinary action 4. 5. 5 VS,J W.P.No.19543 oj2020 against the petitioner. It is further stated that the Joint-Collector, Anantapur has taken up the case on file and issued interim disposal orders to the Tahsildar, Rayadurg, vide proceedings dated 30.12.2019, directing him to take over the possession of the seized stocks and dispose of them under PDS and keep the sale proceeds under Revenue Deposits “8843 - Head of Account till disposal of the case”. Basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Rayadurg, the Joint-Collector, Ananthapuram issued a show- cause notice on 30.12.2019 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven days from the date of receipt of that notice, framing two charges. The petitioner was also directed to appear in person or through his counsel on 10.01.2020, failing which, the case would be disposed of on the material available on record. The charges framed are as under; (1) That the F.P. Shop dealer failed make available scheduled commodities physically as per balances shown n the electronic point of sale device, in violation of Clause 12 (P3} of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. (2) That the F.P. Shop dealer failed to maintain adequate stocks of the scheduied commodities and aiso failed to position the stocks in the premises authorized as specified in the condition Number 17(c) of Form of Authorization, (Clause 8 of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018). It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted his explanation through his advocate for the two charges framed against him. However, after going through the explanation offered by the petitioner, it was found that the explanation is not convincing for the reason that there was a above the allowable limits, and 492 6. variation in respect of rice over a 6 VS,J W.P.No.19543 of 2020 Ltrs of K.Oil was not found on the ground. Further, regarding the change of of the business premises, the report of the Tahsildar, Rayadurg revealed that the petitioner was found to be running the shop in address clearly Door No.2/71. instead of Door No.2/51. At the time of inspection, as the the distribution of had committed certain irregularities in commodities allotted to his fair price shop, the petitioner's authorization was cancelled and as such, requested to dismiss the writ petitioner essential petition. learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents, perusal of the final orders dated 12.05.2020, it can be noticed that the Tahsildar has submitted a report by noticing the following 7. Heard 8. On a variations; Variation in Kgs. Ground balance in C.B (As Issues in Total in Receipts in O.B in kgs Commo SI. Kgs per Kgs Kgs dity No. Kgs e.poss) in Kgs (-) 66.495 4151.000 4217.494 2880.410 7097.905 6670.000 427.905 PDS Rice 1. (-) 0.005 137.700 137.775 85/405 223.000 208.000 15.000 Sugar K.Oil 2 (-) 492 Ltr 0 492 Ltrs 0 492 Ltrs 0 492 Lts 3 certain variations in the stock But, however, though there are available on the ground in the petitioner’s Fair Price shop, the charges are 9. totally different to the said report submitted by the Tahsildar. Charge No.1 is failed to make available scheduled only on the ground that the petitioner commodities physically as per sale device, and charge No.2 is that he failed to njaintain adequate stocks the balance shown in the electronic point of 5 VS,J W.P.No.19543 of2020 and also failed to position the stocks in the of the scheduled commodities authorized as specified in Condition No.17(c) of the Form of premises Authorization. It can also be found that there is a '4 variation of PDS rice to extent of 0.005 kgs. and K.Oil to a tune extent of 66.495 kgs, sugar to an of 492 Ltrs. It is to be noted here stopped way back in has submitted a report alleging the the petitioner’s fair price shop, and on an that the supply of the kerosene oil was the year 2016 itself, but in spite of that, the Tahsiidar variation of 492 Ltrs. of kerosene oil in the other hand, though the petitioner to the two charges framed discussed with regard to the explanation specifically submitted his explanation has against him, nothing has been subr^itted by the petitiorrer. except stating that “the explanation of the is found to be not convincing for the counsel for the Respondent Dealer reason that variation in respect of PDS rice was over limits and K.Oil of 492 Ltrs was not found on ground.” Admittedly and above the allowable the variation of the K.Oil though it is not necessary. there is no charge on K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh', categorically held that the reasons for Even this Court, in 10. under similar circumstances has coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to authority or the State that the for the quasi-judicial/administrative explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. say '2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) J.J 8 VS,J . I W.p. No. 19543 of 2020 passed by the respondents should explain the submitted by the petitioner is not to cancel the petitioner’s authorization. The impugned order 11. reasons in what way the explanation convincing to take a drastic step But, in the present case, admittedly, though certain variations have been alleged in the report submitted by the respondents, no charge has been framed to the extent been assigned with regard to such, the impugned proceedings have to be set-aside. no reasons have of said variations, and as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner; as is allowed by setting aside the impugned In the result, the writ petition is 12. .05.2020 passed by the 3^' respondent. The petitioner from the respondent authorities by proceedings dated 12 is at liberty to obtain fresh authorization contemplated under law. There shall be no order following the procedure as as to costs. pending, if any, shall also sequel, miscellaneous applications As a stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ^ OFFICER SEC 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, state of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 3. The Joint Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. To 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, , Kalyandurg, Anantapur District. 5. The Tahsildar, Raydurg Mandal, Anantapur District. 6. One CC to SRI. P NARAHARI BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CCs iO GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:12/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19543 OF 2020 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS