APHC010003432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 122/2025 Between: Mukkara Jayapradha, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “…to issue a writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus questioning the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in cancelling the fair price shop dealership held by the petitioner fair price 2 shop No.1205038 held by the petitioner at Nalladasaripalli village, Guntakal Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any order for cancellation 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 consequentially direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold the fair price shop No.1205038 held by the petitioner at Nalladasaripalli Village, Guntakal Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District and pass other order or orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.1205038 at Nalladasaripalli village, Guntakal mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District on permanent basis since 2006 and the authorization of the petitioner is valid till March, 2025. On 30.12.2024, the CSDT of the Civil Supplies Department came to the petitioner’s shop and took his signature and instructed him orally that the fair price shop was allotted in favour of 6th respondent. The petitioner requested the 4th and the 5th respondents and they replied that due to changes in the government, there are political pressures. The respondents, without issuing any notice or without any order of cancellation of the dealership, stopped providing essential goods and cancelled 3 the dealer of the petitioner which causes irreparable loss to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case was foisted as though an inspection was held in the presence of the dealer which is evident from the written instructions submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. In this regard he submitted that it was mentioned in the instructions that the dealer was not in the village at the time of inspection and hence, her son who was present co-operated for enquiry/inspection, but both the panchanama and the alleged statement of the dealer contained the signature of the dealer. Therefore, he submitted that false documents were prepared by high-handedly obtaining the signatures of the dealer on the documents prepared by the officials to suit their purpose of terminating the dealership of the petitioner. With regard to the respondent No.6, he submitted that he had been impleaded under the impression that he was appointed as a temporary dealer of the shop of the petitioner, but the written instructions indicated that no such appointment had been made. However, he submitted that as this Court directed issue of notice, it had been sent. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there was huge variation of the stock as shown in the table here below and that he has no latest instructions as to whether there was any order of suspension passed after the written instructions dated 04.01.2025. 4 Sl. N o. Name of the EC OB (in quin tals) Rec eipt Total Sales Balance as per online stock register Ground balanc e availabl e Variatio ns (-)/(+) 1 Forti- Fied rice 1396 4925 6321 3493 2828 850 (-) 1978- (56.63% 2 Jowar 375 915 1290 762 528 0 (-) 528 (- 69.29%) 3 Dal 100 214 314 255 59 0 (-) 59 (-23.14) 4 Sugar (1/2 kg) pkt) 8 206 268 268 0 0 0 5. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the instructions to him, the petitioner has not received any order of suspension of the authorisation, but essential commodities are not being supplied to the petitioner for distribution. 6. In view of the serious allegations and counter allegations, this matter requires a detailed enquiry as held in the decision: C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others, (2015) 6 ALD 359 : (2015) 6 ALT 791 27. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges 5 exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible 6 but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning. As such, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to expeditiously conduct enquiry in the light of the above cited decision within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing with the impugned proceedings gets set aside without any further order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated:19.02.2025 GRL 7