APHC010338192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17186/2024 Between: 1. SYED ARIFULLA, , S/O. LATE SYED NAZIRUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1137007, R/O. D.NO.4/31, NEELAKANTARAO PETA, RAMAPURAM, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT RAYACHOTY. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTI ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , RAMAPURAM MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, M.L.S POINT L.R PALLI, ANNAMAYYA 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No. C/595/2024, dated 31.07.2024 issued 2 VS,J W.P.No.17186 of 2024 by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently setaside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 continue me as the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Ref.No. C/595/2024, dated 31.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 07.08.2024 in I. A. No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.17186 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.17186 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.C/595/2024, dated 31.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same.…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer for Fair Price Shop No.1137007 situated in Neelakantarayapeta Village, Ramapuram Mandalin the year 2006. The said authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders with any complaint either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities. b) While the matter being so, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Ramapuram Mandal on 30.07.2024, respondent No.3 issued impugned proceedings dated 31.07.2024, suspending the petitioner‟s authorization pending enquiry for committing some irregularities, and in the 4 VS,J W.P.No.17186 of 2024 said impugned proceedings also directed the Tahsildar, Ramapuram Mandal to make alternative arrangements for uninterrupted supply of essential commodities to the cardholders. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that neither any inspection was conducted in the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop nor any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order dated 31.07.2024. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 07.08.2024, this Court passed the interim order, suspending the proceedings dated 31.07.2024 issued by respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No.3 has filed a detailed counter reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner; but, however, have stated that the impugned order was passed based on a thorough inspection and investigation conducted by the officials i.e., the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Lakkireddipalli Mandal, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ramapuram Mandal, and the Village Revenue Officer, Neelakantaraopeta Village. It is further stated that, based on the report dated 30.07.2024 submitted by the Tahsildar alleging that the petitioner was distributing less rice to the cardholders, the present impugned order has been passed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Though it is alleged in the counter that, based on the inspection and investigation conducted by the concerned officials, the Tahsildar, Ramapuram 5 VS,J W.P.No.17186 of 2024 Mandal submitted a report to respondent No.3 on 30.07.2024, neither in the impugned order nor the counter has it been mentioned on what date the inspection was conducted in the petitioner‟s shop, and it is also a fact that neither a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation before passing the suspension order nor was an enquiry conducted. But, however, solely basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar on 30.07.2024, wherein the date of the inspection was not even mentioned, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order. 7. In view of the above, it is evident that the respondents, before issuance of the said impugned proceedings, have not issued any show-cause notice calling for an explanation and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in violation of “Audi alteram Partem” as it is the basic concept of the principles of natural justice. 7. „Audi alteram partem‟ means „hear the other side‟, or „no man should be condemned unheard‟ or „both the sides must be heard before passing any order‟. Generally, this maxim includes two elements: (i) Notice; and (ii) Hearing. 8. Before taking any action, the affected party must be given a notice to show cause as to why the action shall not be taken against him. It is a sine qua non of the right of fair hearing. Any order passed without giving notice is against the principles of natural justice and is void ab initio. The right to notice means the right of being known. A notice must contain the time, place and 6 VS,J W.P.No.17186 of 2024 date of hearing, and proposed action against the person. All these things should be included in a notice to make it proper and adequate. Non-issue of the notice or any defective service of the notice do not affect the jurisdiction of the authority but violates the principles of natural justice. 9. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, firstly; a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard, secondly; the concerned authority should follow fair and transparent procedure and lastly; the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matters by reasoned order or speaking order. this has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad [vide: “Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/s. Shukla1”] . 10. Further, the petitioner‟s case falls under the observation made in judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam and others 2 , wherein it was categorically 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 1 (2010) 4 SCC 785 2 2002 (1) ALD 577 7 VS,J W.P.No.17186 of 2024 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 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 the present case on hand, the respondents, without issuing any show-cause notice before passing the impugned order in accordance with law, cannot stop the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary in view of law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment. 12. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by respondent No.3. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop until any disciplinary action has been initiated as against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 VS,J W.P.No.17186 of 2024 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 08.09.2025. KGR