(> APHC010377712015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0BB 0^ O tJ TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, a? A/ CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 6 OF 9nn; ^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters order dated 27.11.2014 in WP No.27150 of 2010 Between: Smt,D.Reddemma, W/o. T.Venkataramana, Hindu, aged about 49 years Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No.51, Madanapalle (Urban), Madanapalle Mandal Chittoor District Patent Appeal against the on the file of High Court. "' ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER_ AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Chittoor. 2. The Joint Collector, Chittoor District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle 4. The Tahsildar, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor (R4 cause title i WAMP No.150 of 2014) rep. by District Collector, Chittoor District, , Chittoor. , Chittoor District. District. IS amended as per Court order dated 30.01.2015 im ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. r . ./ lA NO: 1 OF 2015(WAMP 19 OF 2015^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated may be pleased to any arrangement for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No,51, Majdanapalle (Urban), Chiltoor District on permanent basis, pending disposal of the above writ petition. - Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHADEVA in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court direct the respondents not to make KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: The Court made the following: JUDGMENT GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Bench Sr.No:-13 [3483] APHC010377712015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0B0 mm 0% WRIT APPEAL NO; 6 of 2015 ...Appellant Smt. D. Reddemma, Chlttoor District Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor and others. ...Respondents ********** Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Advocate for appellant Advocate for respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 5th August 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 passed in W.P.No.27150 of 2010. The petition has been filed by the appellant herein challenging the proceedings dated 27.09.2010 passed by the District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor whereby the proceedings dated 31.05.2010 of the Joint Collector, Chittoor District and proceedings dated 09.02.2010 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District were confirmed. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.51, Madanapalle (Urban), Chittoor District. An inspection was carried 3. 2 out in the shop and a report was prepared dated 27.05.2009 in which certain irregularities were highlighted. A show cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 04.06.2009 was issued in which six charges were framed against the petitioner. The following were the charges:- 1. that there is variation of stocks as per Stock Register, Sales Register and ground balance. There is an excess quantity of 32 Liters of P.Oil, 22 Ks of Red gram and 46 Liters of K.Oil in less quantity. 2. The dealer did not produce the rice coupons for a quantity of 9.88 Quintals to the Inspecting Officers. 3. The dealer is not maintaining timings as prescribed by the Government. 4. that the F.P. Shop dealer is distributing Essential Commodities to the cards for only 2 to 3 days in a month. 5. that the F.P. Shop dealer is not running the F.P. Shop herself, but it is maintained by benami viz.T.Narayana. 6. that the dealer has not maintained stock board. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner. After considering the 4. same, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 09.02.2010 ordering the cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector, Chittoor District, who, by virtue of his order dated 31.05.2010, confirmed the order passed by the R.D.O. A revision was also preferred before the District Collector, Chittoor District which too came to be The orders impugned were challenged by the petitioner in dismissed. 3 W.P.No.27150 of 2010, which came to be dismissed by virtue of the order and judgment dated 27.11.2014, which is impugned in the present writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the view expressed by the learned single Judge is unsustainable in law as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner by respondent No.3 before the order came to be passed on 09.02.2010 and further that there was no material which would have warranted the passing of the said order resulting in cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through 6. the records. The order dated 09.02.2010 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner was passed after considering the charges that were levelled against the petitioner and the response that has been filed by the petitioner. Charge Nos.1 and 2 were in fact admitted by the petitioner based upon which respondent No.3 had proceeded to pass the order of cancellation. 7. For facility of reference, the response filed by the petitioner in regard to Charge No.1 as also Charge No.2 was as under:- 8. “Explanation I submit that there are no irregularities committed by me. submit that I have distributed kerosene to all the card holders. I am herewith submitting the affidavit of card holders please examine the and also enquire with them. It may due to oversight the entries might have missed. I same 4 Dal entries might have been motive. Therefore I With regard to PamoUan and missed. / have not committed any mistake with any to discharge me from the above charge. request to you Exglanation:- cupans 60 members as per issued Rice to them. Therefore, the I have not For the past 3 months there are the directions of the M.R.I. I have Rice is issued to the persons misused the Rice, order.” In regard to charge No.3 which pertain maintained by the petitioner for running rendered was that the shop was no who are not having cupans. conditions of the control I have not violated any to the timings not being the shop, although the explanation till 8:00 p.m., the Krishna Murthy was who informed that the shop was not 9. running from 7:30 a.m. recorded by respondent No.3 was that one finding examined along with 36 cardholders according to the prescribed timings. running Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no opportunity was 10. granted to the petitioner to cross examine the 36 card holders who are examined by respondent No.3 much less was ever any said to have been opportunity granted to cross examine the report of respondent No.3. Sri Krishna Murthy whose name figures in record placed for our perusal by the opportunity had Indeed been There is no material on respondents which would suggest that such an 11. granted. 5 No.4 which pertains to the fair price shop working month, the finding recorded is that on examination of to notice that the shop is run 12. In regard to Charge for two or three days in a Sri Krishna Murthy and 36 card holders, it came only for three days. In Charge No.5. it was alleged that the fair price shop was being run 13. benami by T. Narayana. The explanation rendered was that T. Narayana was elder brother) and that the petitioner had been The finding recorded by the brother-in-law (husband’s taking his help in maintaining the accounts respondent No.3 was that the shop was in T. Narayana and not by the petitioner. in fact being run benami by to the fair price shop dealer not On Charge No.6, which pertain although the explanation rendered was that the price list 14. maintaining price list, printed on the wall, the same was recorded was that there was no price seemed to be violated by the petitioner. It is in that background learned single Judge upheld the order of cancellation of authorization held to be incorrect as the finding list displayed which was the condition was which was that the of the petitioner and dismissed the petition and order impugned as also the recorded and upheld by the learned is unsustainable, as examine any of On going through the judgment material on record, although the finding single Judge in regard to Charge No.3, in our opinion, is 15. to have been granted no opportunity to cross been examined behind the back of the there appears the witnesses which are stated to have 6 petitioner, which would, in our opinion, violated the principles of natural justice, of the fact that Charge Nos.1 and 2 had been admitted by the yet, in view petitioner and charge Nos 4 to 6 have also been found to have been proved authorities and upheid by the learned single Judge, we do not find this by the a fit case for our interference. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the present appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies. ssb !■: COURT <i ' ♦' # * ' DATED:05/08/2025 (| "'SEPai?; 1 ★ CuTOmseci,o„^« ii:^gATCH€.PjS^ JUDGMENT WA No.6 OF 2015 \ DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS