1 APHC010438252019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21112/2019 Between: 1. KOMARA NEELAKARL,, S/O APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. F.P SHOP DEALER, R/O KOTTURU VILLAGE, H/O CHITHAPALLI VILLAGE, POOSPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICER, BHOGAPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, POOSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. SRI SIVA SAI MAHILA PODUPU SANGAM SHG, REP BY ITS MEMBER BARRI BHARATHI, D/O B. PENTA RAO, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O KOTTURU VILLAGE, H/O CHINTHAPALLI VILLAGE, 2 POOSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc No. 289/2019-G.1 dated )9.12.2019, issued by the 2nd respondent in replacing the petitioner herein with the 6th respondent as temporary F.P shop dealer to F.P Shop No. 0225022, Chinthapalli-2, Chinthapalli Village, Poosapatin ga Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as being illegal, arbitrary. and without jurisdiction and contrary to the judgments of the Apex court and the High Courts and consequently set aside the same, by directing the respondents No.2 to 5 to continue the petitioner herein as temporary F.P shop dealer of F.P Shop No. 0225022, Chinthapalli-2, Chinthapalli Villae, Pocsapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District, till the regular appointment is made and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 direct the respondents No. 2 to 5 to continue the petitioner as temporary F.P Shop dealer of F.P Shop No. 0225022, Chinthapalli-2, Chinthapalli Villae, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District, by releasing stocks to the petitioner, by suspending the impugned proceedings in Rc No. 289/2019-G.1 dated 09.12.2019 IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 vacate the interim suspension order dt. 27.12.2019 passed in IA.No. 1/2019 in WP.No. 21112 of 2019 and dismiss the Writ Petition as there are no merits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM 3 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc No. 289/2019-G.1 dated )9.12.2019, issued by the 2nd respondent in replacing the petitioner herein with the 6th respondent as temporary F.P shop dealer to F.P Shop No. 0225022, Chinthapalli-2, Chinthapalli Village, Poosapatin ga Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as being illegal, arbitrary. and without jurisdiction and contrary to the judgments of the Apex court and the High Courts and consequently set aside the same, by directing the respondents No.2 to 5 to continue the petitioner herein as temporary F.P shop dealer of F.P Shop No. 0225022, Chinthapalli-2, Chinthapalli Villae, Pocsapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District, till the regular appointment is made and to pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was allotted fair price shop No.0225022 of Chinthapalli-2, Chinthapalli village, Poosapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram district for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, vide proceedings dated 19.09.2014 of the 3rd respondent, as one K. Krishna, who is a permanent dealer of the said shop was under suspension. Ever since, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint. 3. While the matter stood thus, basing on the recommendation of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 09.12.2019 removing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer by appointing the 6th respondent, without issuing any show cause notice. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 27.12.2019, this Court has passed an interim order by directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to continue the petitioner as temporary fair price shop dealer of the shop No.0225022, Chinthapalli – 2, Chinthapalli village, Poosapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram district, by releasing stocks to the petitioner and has further suspended the operation of the impugned proceedings dated 09.12.2019. 5. Heard Sri. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer, pending action against the permanent dealer. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 09.12.2019, it can be observed that solely basing on a recommendation made by the 4th respondent, the petitioner herein was replaced by the 6th respondent, without conducting enquiry or without issuing any show cause notice before passing the impugned order. 6. Under similar circumstances, this Court, in an order passed on 24.12.2014 in W.P.No.39630 of 2014 held as under: “Once a dealer is appointed even on temporary basis, the question of the appointing authority comparing the qualifications of such dealer with that of a third person, who possess higher educational qualifications, and preferring such third person on that ground should not arise at all. In the absence of any proven allegations of irregularities attributed to the petitioner in the running of the fair price shop, its replacement with respondent No.6 cannot be sustained and the impugned proceeding in Ref.D/1496/2014, dated 08-12-2014, issued by respondent No.4, is, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to continue the petitioner as the temporary fair price shop dealer till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis.” 6 7. Even in the case on hand, though the petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer, except stating that there are allegations against the petitioner, neither enquiry was conducted nor a show cause notice was issued. Merely stating that there are certain allegations against the petitioner and only because the Tahsildar has submitted an adverse report, the petitioner cannot be replaced with another temporary fair price shop dealer. If at all the respondents find any fault on the part of the petitioner, they shall issue a show cause notice and follow the procedure as contemplated under the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, but the respondents have not resorted to such procedure, which is against the principles of natural justice. 8. The fundamental rules of natural justice have become firmly embedded in modern jurisprudence and the same may be broadly categorized under the heads of: “(1) Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, i.e. no one shall be a judge in his own case, or “Doctrine of Bias”. (2) Audi alteram partem i.e. Right of hearing. (3) Reasoned decision/Speaking order.” 9. In the present case, this Court is primarily concerned with the second principle, viz., audi alteram partem. “Audi alteram partem” is one of the most important aspects of the principles of natural justice which literally means “to hear the other side”. This means the necessity to provide a fair hearing i.e. affording opportunity to the person concerned to explain his position before such person is subjected to any adverse action so that he may be able to 7 explain the facts and circumstances and convince the authorities concerned that such a contemplated or proposed adverse action is not called for. This principle of audi alteram partem requires that notice must be given to the person before any adverse action is taken and such notice cannot be vague and ambiguous to the proposed action to be taken so as to apprise the authorities determinatively the cases he has to meet. In other words, the person concerned must be informed of the charges and allegations clearly against him so that he may be able to fully meet these allegations and defend himself. 10. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent on 09.12.2019 are hereby set-aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner, if necessary, in accordance with law, by duly following the principles of natural justice. Further, the respondents shall continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of shop No.0225022 of Chinthapalli-2, Chinthapalli village, Poosapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram district, until a permanent fair price shop dealer is appointed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :09.09.2025. Gss