1 APHC010313822019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14783/2019 Between: 1. BOGGULA MOUNIKA,, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, FP SHOP DEALER, YETURU VILLAGE, KHAJIPET MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, KHAJIPET MANDAL, KHAJIPET, YSR KADAPA 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.1(4)/944 / 2019, dated 30.8.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 2 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 proceedings in Ref.No.I(4)/944/2019, dated 30.8.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent by directing the 4th respondent to allot the essential commodities to the petitioner Fair Price Shops bearing Fair Price Shop No.1113024 of Yeturu Village, Khajipet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) 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 the writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.1(4)/944 / 2019, dated 30.8.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1113024 of Yeturu village, Khajipet mandal, YSR Kadapa district vide proceeding dated 02.05.2018 of the 3rd respondent and ever since, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the card holders, without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the respondent authorities. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Additional Revenue Inspector of Khajipet mandal inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found that the petitioner’s mother and another relative were distributing the essential commodities instead of the petitioner and they further found that the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders by collecting excess amount than specified rates. As such, the 4th respondent has submitted a report to the 2nd respondent recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner, basing on which, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2019 suspending the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent 4 authorities in issuing the impugned proceedings without issuing any show cause notice or calling for an explanation from the petitioner, the present petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 26.09.2019, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…there shall be interim suspension of the Proceedings dt. 30.08.2019, for a limited period of four weeks. In the meanwhile, the respondent authorities shall supply the essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Badvel Division, YSR Kadapa district in Ref.No.F/896/2025 wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1113024 of Yeturu village. 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 30.08.2019, it can be seen that though the petitioner was initially appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer, no show cause notice was issued to her before issuing the suspension proceedings dated 30.08.2019 which was in fact solely based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 19.08.2019, which in fact is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5 8. The fundamental rules of natural justice have become firmly embedded in modern jurisprudence and the same may be broadly categorized under the heads of: “(1) Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, i.e. no one shall be a judge in his own case, or “Doctrine of Bias”. (2) Audi alteram partem i.e. Right of hearing. (3) Reasoned decision/Speaking order.” 9. In present case, this Court is primarily concerned with the second principle, viz., audi alteram partem. “Audi alteram partem” is one of the most important aspects of the principles of natural justice which literally means “to hear the other side”. This means the necessity to provide a fair hearing i.e. affording opportunity to the person concerned to explain his position before such person is subjected to any adverse action so that he may be able to explain the facts and circumstances and convince the authorities concerned that such a contemplated or proposed adverse action is not called for. This principle of audi alteram partem requires that notice must be given to the person before any adverse action is taken and such notice cannot be vague and ambiguous to the proposed action to be taken so as to apprise the authorities determinatively the cases he has to meet. In other words, the person concerned must be informed of the charges and allegations clearly against him so that he may be able to fully meet these allegations and defend himself. 10. In the case on hand, though the petitioner is a permanent dealer, she was deprived of an opportunity of hearing. Further, the respondent authorities have 6 not issued any show cause notice to the petitioner seeking her explanation, before taking adverse action against her. It can also be observed that, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings, solely basing upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, which is admittedly in violation of principles of natural justice. As such, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set-aside. In such a case, the petitioner’s case would fall under a judgment passed by the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1 wherein the Court held as follows – “A statutory authority, it is trite, must act within the four corners of the statute in terms of the statutory orders and procedure laid down to suspend the licence. As already noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the relevant orders have power to suspend the authorisation or licence of the dealer. Without applying its mind and without taking recourse thereto, the Court should not normally permit the authorities, unless extraordinary situation exists, to allow them to do something indirectly, which they cannot do it directly. If a broad proposition to this effect is laid down, the same, in a given case may amount to abuse of the process of law. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, acts sentinel qui vive and thus it has to protect the citizen from arbitrary and capricious action of the executive. If the licensing authority themselves upon application of mind come to the conclusion that the irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant suspension of his licence, it may do so. But, in our considered opinion, the authority without taking recourse to the said action, cannot, refuse to supply the essential commodities. In the event an order of suspension of licence is passed, the authorities will have to make an alternative 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 7 arrangement. But, in a case of this nature, the card holders would be the worst sufferers inasmuch their essential commodities would not be supplied to them at all.” 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the proceedings dated 30.08.2019 of the 2nd respondent are hereby set-aside. However, if necessary, the respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, by duly following the principles of natural justice. It is needless to state that till such time, the respondent authorities shall provide essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop bearing No.1113024 of Yeturu village, Khajipet mandal, YSR Kadapa district. 12. 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 :16.09.2025. Gss