m IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVM TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 701 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment dated 28-07-2023 in W.P.No. 21636 of 2021, on the file of the High Court. Between: B_ Ra^ Kumar S/o. B. Krishna, Aged about 53 years, Occ F P Shop Dealer, Shop. No. 0638007,-Guduru Village & Mandal Krishna District.' ...APPELLANT '■S , ,/i?AND The ^ate of Andhra Prad^li, Represented by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.State ■ ■ r* i- i .’r The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies) Machilipatnam, Krishna District. The Revenue Divisional'Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. The Tahsildar, Guduru Mandal,, Krishna District. 1. -t i 2. 3. 4. ...RESPONDENTS lA 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 to suspend the orders passed by the learned single in W. P. No 21636 of 2021 dated 28.07.2025^ i t: -■ Counsel for the Appellant: SF?| K. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:, JUDGMENT ♦ APHC010354942024 Bench Sr.No:-53 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 701 of 2024 B. Ravi Kumar ...Appellant Vs. The State Of AP and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant; Advocate for Respondent: Mr. K Srinivas Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 17**’June 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 28.07.2023, in W.P. No.21636 of 2021. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: The petitioner came to be appointed as a fair price shop dealer. A show cause notice, dated 15.05.2020, was served upon the petitioner to show 2. cause as to why his authorization as a fair price shop dealer be not cancelled. The basis for the show cause notice was two-fold, firstly that there were variations in the physical stocks in the fair price shop of the petitioner leading 2 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 701 of 2024 to shortage of the commodities, and secondly, that he was indulging in political activity, which made him liable for cancellation of his authorization as a fair price shop dealer on account of clause 12(s) and clause 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the Control Order, 2018”). Insofar as the second allegation regarding the petitioner indulging in political activities is concerned, the same was based upon a video clip posted on the social media wherein the petitioner is said to have stated that he belongs to Telugu Desam Party of which he was an active member for the last twenty years and that ruling party members were harassing him unnecessarily. 3. On receipt of the show cause notice, a reply is stated to have been submitted by the petitioner in which the petitioner is stated to have denied the allegations including the allegation that he was indulging in any political activity. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, upon receipt of the reply to the show cause notice, finally passed the order impugned, dated 26.08.2021, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer. This was done in exercise of the powers conferred under clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. «■ 3 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 701of 2024 Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, envisages that the appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization. 5. The basis for cancelling the authorization as per the order impugned 6. passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was thus: “Perused the records. As per A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution system (Control) Order 2018 issued in the G.O, vide reference 11th read above, it was mentioned in para 12 that Licensing & Responsibilities / duties of Fair Price Shop Dealer in which in Para 12 (S) that "No fair price shop dealer shall take part in any political activities directly or indirectly in any general/Municipal/Panchayat Raj Elections, hampering the public distribution system and the authorization granted to them under the order shall be cancelled if she/he was found involved in such political activities/canvassing." In this present case, it has been observed from the Compact Disc (CD) furnished by the enquiry officer, the F.P. Shop dealer was clearly given his voice stating that he is an active member of a Political party since 1991. The dealer himself has admitted that he is a active member of Political Party. Hence it is clearly established that the dealer was involved in Political Activities since a long time and thereby violated Section 12(s) of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and also contravened Clause 22(1) of A.P: State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 by interfering the smooth distribution of essential commodities in the village and also contravened Condition 13 of Authorization issued under A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018. In view of the above and as per the powers confirmed me under Section 8(4) of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, the authorization issued to Sri B Ravi Kumar, Dealer of F.P. Shop No: 0638007 of Guduru village and Mandal is hereby cancelled.” The aforementioned order came to be challenged by the 7. petitioner in W.P. No.21636 of 2021, which was dismissed by virtue of the 4 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 701of 2024 judgment and order impugned. The learned single Judge, as can be seen from the judgment and order impugned, after going through the Compact Disc in chambers, came to a conclusion that the petitioner had spoken on several aspects which were not just politically loaded, but were purely political in character and nature, which violated clause 12(s) of the Control Order, 2018. What was held by the learned single Judge was as under: 4. Since the issue revolves around a compact disk and that the said compact disk has already been filed by the Writ Petitioner along with the Affidavit, this Court, on the last occasion has watched the said compact disk in the Chamber. It appears to the Court that the findings rendered by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned proceedings (Ex.P1) are well justified in view of the role of the Writ Petitioner as seen in the video. 5. The Writ Petitioner has recorded a video clipping (recorded in the CD) and has spoken on several aspects which are not just politically loaded, but they are purely of political character and nature. The audio-visual nature of the C.D would clinch the case against the Writ Petitioner. It is a case of “res ipsa loquitur” (things speak to themselves) and that this evidence (Compact Disk) is directly and unimpeachably against the Writ Petitioner. 6. Clause 12(s) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (herein after referred to as Control Order, 2018) reads as under: “(s) no fair price shop dealer shall take part in any political activity directly or indirectly in any General/Municipal/Panchayat Raj elections, hampering the public distribution system and the authorization granted to them under the Order shall be cancelled, if she/he was found involved in such political activity/canvassing.” 7. After having watched the videograph, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the Writ Petitioner squarely falls within the teeth of the sub-Clause (s) of Clause 12 of the Control Order, 2018. 8. Hence the present appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No: 701of2024 Admittedly, the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed the order, dated 10. 26.08.2021, on the ground that clause 12(s) and 22(1) of the Control Order, 2018, had been violated by the petitioner and the order had its basis in the video clip, which was placed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 11. Since clause 12(s) and clause 22(1) of the Control Order, 2018, have a bearing on the present controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same hereinbelow for purposes of clarity and understanding; “12(s) no fair price shop dealer shall take part in any political activity directly or indirectly in any General/Municipal/Panchayat Raj elections, hampering the public distribution system and the authorization granted to them under the Order shall be cancelled, if she/he was found involved in such political activity/canvassing. ” “22. (1) Interruption in the process of Distribution: No fair price shop dealer or card holder or any person shall be allowed to cause interruption or interfere with the process of smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under Targeted Public Distribution System or other Government schemes at any level, till the scheduled commodity reaches the intended beneficiary. Any such attempt of interruption or interfering with such process shall be treated as an abetment and be deemed to have contravened this Order, thereby committed an offence under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.” 12. A perusal of clause 12(s) would, therefore, show that the same prohibits a fair price shop dealer from taking part in any political activity directly or indirectly in any General/Municipal/Panchayat Raj elections hampering the Public Distribution System. The important elements of clause 12(s), therefore, are that the participation in political activity has to be participation either directly or indirectly in a political activity connected with the General elections. 6 HCJ a RC,J W.A. No: 701of 2024 Municipal elections or Panchayat Raj elections, and that, such participation should hamper the Public Distribution System. Further, clause 22(1) of the Control Order, 2018, similarly, envisages that if there is any attempt of interruption or interference with the process of smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under the Targeted Public Distribution System or other Government schemes at any level, the same shall be treated as an abetment and be deemed to have contravened the Order of 2018 making the fair price shop dealer liable to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 8 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955. At this stage, it may also be relevant to understand as to what is 13. envisaged by the phrase ‘political activity’ as contained in clause 12(s) of the Control Order, 2018. Admittedly, the phrase ‘political activity’ has not been defined in the Control Order. However, one can get some insight about what would constitute a political activity from the definition of ‘political activities’ as defined under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, which reads as under: “2(d) “political activity” includes any activity promoting or propagating the aims or objects of a political party or any cause, issue or question of a political nature by organising meetings, demonstrations, processions, collection or disbursement of funds, or by the issue of directions or decrees, or by any other means, and includes also such activity by or on behalf of a person seeking election as a candidate for any election to Parliament, any State Legislature or any local authority;” 7 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No; 701of 2024 14. In the present case, apart from the Compact Disc allegedly containing a statement made by the petitioner that he was an active member of a political party, there is no material on record which would suggest that the petitioner had ever actively promoted or propagated the aims and objectives of a political party, organized meetings, demonstrations, processions or canvassed during General, Municipal or Panchayat Raj elections, much less is there any evidence on record that on account of such participation and political activity, the Public Distribution System was hampered. A statement made by the petitioner in the video clip may also be a hollow slogan, which by itself may not be sufficient to incriminate the petitioner making him liable for action in terms of clause 12(s) r/w clause 22(1) of the Control Order, 2018. In fact, no evidence appears to have been led by the authorities in support of the charges against the petitioner, much less was there any opportunity given to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. There is nothing on record by way of evidence that there was ever any interruption or disturbance in the Public Distribution System for which the petitioner had been appointed as a fair price shop dealer. The essential elements of clause 12(s) and clause 22 of Control Order, 2018 proved in the inquiry conducted by the authorities. were never t- / 8 HCJ a RC,J W.A. No: 701of 2024 In our opinion, the learned single Judge committed an error in upholding the order, dated 26.08.2021, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is perverse in law. We, accordingly, allow the appeal setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge as also the order impugned, dated 26.08.2021. As a necessary consequence, the petitioner/appellant shall stand reinstated as a fair price shop dealer, and any other arrangement made in his place on account of the order impugned shall be deemed to be inoperative. 15. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT ^GISTRAR SECTIO^FFICER K //TRUE COPY// To, PraHoch^Q^' Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh’^tate^^'^'^ Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra 2. The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies) Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 4. The Tahsildar, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. 5. One CC to Sri K. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] [OUT^^^ of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr T HIGH COURT DATED:17/06/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.701 of 2024 r 21 JUN 2025 S c» <>» ^S.4iuirent ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS