APHC010312712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16000/2025 Between: 1. SRI BANGARL MADHAVAYYA, S/O CHANDRAYYA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC- F.P.SHOP DEALER F.P.SHOP NO.0134052. R/ORANIGAMVILLAGE, SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPT.,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALASA,SRLKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SOMPETAMANDAL, 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to declare the impugned order passed by 2 VS,J W.P.NO.16000 OF 2025 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District, the 4th respondent herein vide Rc.No.1939/2024 DT(LR),dt.22.05.2025, Cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in gross violation of principles of natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same by restoring to supply essential commodities to the petitioner as fair price shop dealer and 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to distribute the Essential Commodities to the respective card holders as F.P shop dealer, attached to in shop No.0134052 of Ranigam Village, in Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, by suspending the operation of the order vide Rc.No. 1939/2024 DT(LR),dt.22.05.2025, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District, the 4th respondent herein, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 02.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 OF 2025 in W.P.No.16000 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.16000 OF 2025 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to declare the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District, the 4th respondent herein vide Rc.No.1939/2024 DT(LR),dt.22.05.2025, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in gross violation of principles of natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same by restoring to supply essential commodities to the petitioner as fair price shop dealer and pass….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer on a permanent basis in the year 2011 for shop No.0134052, in Ranigam Village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. The petitioner’s authorization was being renewed from time to time. 3. While the matter being so, in view of the change of the Government and due to local political pressure, a team consisting of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Enforcement, Srikakulam along with MRI, Sompeta has surprisingly visited the petitioner’s shop on 10.12.2024 at around 3:00p.m., and have identified certain irregularities and also variations in the stocks. Thereafter, 6-A case was initiated against the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer/4th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 24.12.2024 calling for explanation from the petitioner, within a period of 7 days 4 VS,J W.P.NO.16000 OF 2025 from the date of receipt of the show cause notice, to which the petitioner submitted an explanation on 31.12.2024. 4. However, the 4th respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization, without considering the said explanation submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.3199 of 2025, which was disposed of, at the admission stage itself on 07.02.2025, which reads as under:- “without going into the merits of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned assistant Government Pleader, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry within a period of 90 days. Failing which, the respondents shall restore the dealership of the writ petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs”. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that the 4th respondent, even without conducting any enquiry and without assigning any reasons, have passed the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following interim order dated 22.05.2025, which reads as under:- “There shall be an interim suspension of the impugned order dated 22.05.2025. 7. The 4th respondent has filed counter-affidavit along with vacate stay petition, wherein it is stated that the Tahsildar, Sompeta conducted an enquiry 5 VS,J W.P.NO.16000 OF 2025 in the village on 17.05.2025 and submitted his report. In the said report, it was mentioned that during the enquiry, the card holders have given statement, alleging that the petitioner has not maintained the time schedule for distributing essential commodities regularly through MDU operator. The cardholders also stated that when questioned about the quality and degradation of the stocks, the petitioner is speaking indecently and informed the card holders to ask the Government and concerned authority regarding the same. The Tahsildar, Sompeta also reported that during inspection by the inspecting team on 10.12.2024, they have found that the fair price shop dealer has not displayed the price board and list of cardholders under priority commodities and in this regard, villagers of the Ranigam village have stated that the fair price shop dealer was not giving them the commodities with proper weighment and not distributing the same in proper time, due to which they are facing much inconvenience in getting the essential commodities. It is further stated that the enquiry was conducted within the time frame fixed by this Court and basing on the allegations leveled by the cardholders against the dealer which were proved, during the course of enquiry, the 4th respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.1939/2024 DT(LR) dated 22.05.2025, in exercise of powers vested under Clause-5(iv) in amended notification in G.O.Ms.No.11 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS) dept. dated 09.09.2020 read with the A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. As such, 6 VS,J W.P.NO.16000 OF 2025 requested time to vacate the interim order dated 02.07.2025 and dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 9. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be seen that admittedly an enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar, as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, within a time frame fixed by this Court. But however, on perusal of impugned proceedings reveals that the 4th respondent has not assigned any reasons for coming to a conclusion to cancel the petitioner’s authorization and no reasoning has been given as to how the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing. 10. Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1, under similar circumstances has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 11. In the light of the said judgment, since the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reasons. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1939/2024 DT(LR), dated 22.05.2025 and the matter is remanded back to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration in accordance 1 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 VS,J W.P.NO.16000 OF 2025 with law. It is needless to say that, till such time, the respondent authorities shall supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 14.08.2025 LSP 8 VS,J W.P.NO.16000 OF 2025 149 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16000/2025 14.08.2025 LSP