APHC010442422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22558/2024 Between: 1. CHILLA PRAMEELA, W/O KAILASH REDDY MEMBER OF DWCRA GROUP, AGED 45 YEARS, F.P SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0381012, R/O D.NO 4-58-210, CHITTIVALSA, TAGARAPUVALASA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (CIVIL SUPPLIES), BHEEMUNIPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. MADABATHULA MANGA, SECRETARY, SRI KANAKA DURGA DWRCA MAHIIA PODUPU SANGAM, R/O D.NO 7-44-49, JOGAVARI VEEDHI, TAGARAPUVALASA, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 2 VS,J W.P.No.22558 of 2024 pleased topleased to issue a writ or direction, more particularly a writ of mandamus, declaring the Proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No. 928/2024/SA-C. dated 25.09.2024, removing the Petitioner's temporary dealership pertaining to F.P.Shop No.0381012, Viilage,Tagarapuvalsa Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and appointing the5 th Respondent herein as incharge dealer of F.P.Shop No.0381012, Tagarapuvalsa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principies of natural justice, contrary to the Andhra Pradesh state Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, besides being violative of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14, and19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to 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 pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair shop dealer for F.P.Shop No.0381012, Tagarapuvalsa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by suspending the Proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No. 928/2024/SA-C. dated: 25.09.2024 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 03-10-2024 passed in IA.No. 1 of 2024 in WP.No. 22558 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES NARASIMHA REDDY. G . L The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.22558 of 2024 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.22558 of 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ or direction, more particularly a writ of mandamus, declaring the Proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Rc.No.928/2024/SA-C dated 25.09.2024, removing the Petitioner’s temporary dealership pertaining to F.P.Shop No.0381012, Tagarapuvalsa Viilage, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and appointing the 5th Respondent herein as incharge dealer of F.P.Shop No.0381012, Tagarapuvalsa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice contrary to the Andhra Pradesh state Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, besides being violative of the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same...” 2. The petitioner is a member of Dwakra group and was appointed as a temporary dealer of the Fair Price Shop No.0381012Tagarapuvalasa Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District vide proceedings Rc.No.1435/2021/A, dated 03.08.2021 by the 3rd respondent. 3. While the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings removing the petitioner by replacing the petitioner with the respondent No.5 herein. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the respondents even without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation, on the complaint raised by one K.Suri Babu and others on 25.09.2024 has straight away replaced the petitioner with the 5th respondent herein. 4 VS,J W.P.No.22558 of 2024 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 03.10.2024, this Court passed the following interim order:- “This This petition is filed to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for F.P Shop No.0381012, Tagarapuvalsa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without issuing show cause notice or adopting any other steps for replacing the petitioner with a third party, the respondent authorities have replaced the dealership of the petitioner with the 5th respondent, and thereby the principles of natural justice are violated. On the written instructions of Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam, dated 03.10.2024, to the Government Pleader, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in view of the complaints against the petitioner about irregular supply of commodities from different locations, the stop gap arrangement was made by keeping the 5th respondent in charge dealer. He further submitted that notice should also be given to the 5th respondent. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no principles of natural justice were followed in the case of the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the petitioner is entitled to the relief, more particularly as the stock and EPOS mission are still with the petitioner. Under these circumstances, interim stay as prayed for is granted till 14.10.2024.” 5. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner. But however, has stated that the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, submitted his report vide Rc.No.385/2024/B, dated 23.09.2024 to the Appointing Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemuni Patnam Mandal, stating that the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Bheemili, had conducted a detailed enquiry and reported that the petitioner herein was kept in- charge to the fair price shop No.0381012, which is located at Tagarapuvalasa Village area of Bheemunipatnam Mandal and stated that the petitioner without any prior intimation and without obtaining official permission from the concerned authorities, had shifted the fair price shop to the new location, i.e., the Community 5 VS,J W.P.No.22558 of 2024 Hall situated in Sangivalasa colony, backside of the power office, which is against the rules. In the said report, the Tahsildar has also stated that he had received a complaint from one K.Suri Babu and 20 others on 09.09.2024 and thereafter all the group members of the Dwakra, has passed a resolution stating that the 5th respondent is capable of running a fair price shop efficiently in the place of the petitioner herein. In order to make alternative arrangements for distribution of commodities to the cardholders, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order on 25.09.2024. 6. It is further stated that a notice was issued on 16.11.2024 to the petitioner affording an opportunity of hearing on 25.11.2024 in person or through her advocate. 7. Except stating so, nowhere it is stated as to whether the petitioner had appeared in person on 25.11.2024 pursuant to the said notice, nor that any enquiry was conducted thereafter. 8. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be seen that, except referring to the complaint made by one K.Suri Babu and others on 09.09.2024, letter addressed to the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal on 11.09.2024 and as well as report of the Tahsildar dated 23.09.2024, nowhere it is mentioned in the impugned proceedings as to whether any notice was given to the petitioner before passing the said impugned proceedings. Even as per the counter, it appears that a notice was given to the petitioner on 16.11.2024, i.e., after passing of the impugned proceedings, calling the petitioner to attend for hearing on 25.11.2024, which, in fact, admittedly proves that no enquiry was conducted prior to replacing the petitioner i.e., the 5th respondent vide impugned proceedings 6 VS,J W.P.No.22558 of 2024 dated 25.09.2024, and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also a fact that the petitioner has been running a fair price shop in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court on 03.10.2024. 9. In view of the fact that after passing the impugned order 25.09.2024, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.11.2024 directing the petitioner to appear on 25.11.2024, pursuant to which, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in “Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City) Visakhapatnam and others1” wherein the Court held as follows – “A statutory authority, it is trite, must act within the four corners of the statue 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 authorization 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 exists, to allow them to do something indirectly, which they cannot do it directly. If a broad proposition on 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 1 2002 (1) ALD 577 7 VS,J W.P.No.22558 of 2024 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.” 10. In view of the law laid down by Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the said judgment, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 25.09.2024 issued by respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 16.11.2024 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submitting such explanation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of explanation from the petitioner. Further, the respondents are also directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner by allowing him to distribute the same to the card holders, allotted to his fair price shop, till his dealership is terminated or till passing an order under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :03.09.2025 JLV