1 APHC010315342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15740/2025 Between: Smt. K. Vasanthi, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAGITA MOKSHITHA RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2 The Court made the following order: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings in Ref. No. G/773/2025, dated 29.05.2025, issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby and whereunder the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 1106034, situated at Gunturu Kottala, Survepalli Village, Mydukuru Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, was cancelled. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent, without issuing any notice and following the procedure contemplated under law, passed the impugned order whereby cancelled the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that since 2017, the petitioner did not renew her authorization. That apart, there are certain other allegations also leveled against the petitioner in the impugned order. 3. It is a specific case of the petitioner that she has paid requisite fee for renewal vide Challan No.71577949832023 on 13.03.2024, and for the next year she paid the renewal fee vide Challan No. 81453617692024 on 26.03.2025. Along with the Writ Petition, copies of the said receipts are also filed. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contend that while passing the impugned order, the 3rd respondent, without issuing any notice and without considering the request made by the petitioner for renewal of authorization, cancelled his authorization. Admittedly, the petitioner paid a renewal fee and the same is evident on the perusal of Challans dated 13.03.2024 and 26.03.2025 filed along with the present writ petition. It is needless to mention that as per Clause 8 of Sub-Clause 11(c) of APTPCS Control Order, 2018, if the authorization of the petitioner is to be cancelled, it is incumbent on the part of the 3rd respondent to verify as to whether any application for renewal is pending for consideration. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the 3rd respondent did not undertake such exercise. Apart from the same, the 3rd respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, thereby violated the principles of natural justice. In view of the above reasons, the order impugned does not stand for legal scrutiny and the same is set aside. 4 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. It is needless to mention that this order will not preclude the 3rd respondent from initiating fresh action against the petitioner, if the respondents found any illegality committed by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dated: 27.06.2025 RSI 5 61 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15740 of 2025 6 Dated: 27.06.2025 RSI