APHC010441922017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 18676/2017 Between: 1. L. SATYANARAYANA, S/ O. L. C. SRIRAMULU, AGE 41 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.102, R/ O.: RAMAKRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O.: KRISHNAGIRI VILLAGE, KRISHNAGIRI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT: ...PETITIONER AND 1. PRL SECY C S A P 3 ORS, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT., HYDERABAD, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KURNOOL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT, - 4. THE TAHSILDAR KRISHNAGIRI MANDAL KURNOOL 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders passed in Appeal Case No. CS.3/2012/2016, dated 25.1.2017 by the 2nd respondent without considering the petitioner's explanation and conducting independent enquiry as directed by this Honourable Court in WP No. 17832/2016, dated 2 8.6.2016 and the consequential orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc. B251/2015, dated 21.4.2017 served on 19.5.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent as well as consequential orders of the 3rd respondent IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 22780 OF 2017 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop No.102 of Ramakrishna -puram village, H/ o. Krishnagiri village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District, by suspending the operation of the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Appeal Case No. CS.3/202/2016, dated 25.1.2017 as well as the consequential orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.B 251/2015 dated 21.4.2017 IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 27927 OF 2017 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 impiead the ,petitioners herein as Respondents No.44ez9 in the Writ Petition No.18676 of 2017 as well as in WP.MP.No.22780 of 2017, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y JAYA RAJU 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.18676 of 2017 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders passed in Appeal Case No. CS.3/2012/2016, dated 25.1.2017 by the 2nd respondent without considering the petitioner's explanation and conducting independent enquiry as directed by this Honourable Court in WP No. 17832/2016, dated 8.6.2016 and the consequential orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc. B251/2015, dated 21.4.2017 served on 19.5.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent as well as consequential orders of the 3rd respondent….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.102 of Ramakrishnapuram village, H/o. Krishnagiri village, Krishnagiri mandal, Kurnool district in the year 2010 and has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders ever since. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent has issued orders in Rc.B251/2015, dated 20.03.2015, suspending the petitioner’s authorization stating that the Deputy Tahsildar has conducted inspection in the petitioner’s fair price shop and found variation in the stock when compared with the ground balance, as such Section 6A proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. As the petitioner’s authorization was suspended without considering his explanation and without furnishing the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioner was 4 constrained to file W.P.No.17832 of 2016, wherein, this Court has passed the following order on 08.06.2016: “In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner shall file an appeal before the Joint Collector within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As and when such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the Joint Collector is directed to dispose of the said appeal or any stay application filed within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such appeal, after taking into consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after conducting independent enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. Till the disposal of appeal or any stay application filed by the petitioner, there shall be interim stay of the impugned order…” 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner’s suspension was revoked and he was permitted to distribute the commodities to the card holders till May, 2017. While so, vide proceedings dated 21.04.2017 which were served on the petitioner on 19.05.2017, the 3rd respondent has informed the petitioner that the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 25.01.2017 confirmed the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of there being an order of this Court dated 08.06.2016, with a direction to conduct independent enquiry and to pass orders, the 2nd respondent has failed to do so and has directly confirmed the cancellation orders. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17832 of 2016 on 08.06.2016, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same came up for hearing on 22.07.2016 and was later adjourned on various 5 occasions which indicates that the petitioner was given enough opportunity to prove his case. On 25.01.2017, after considering the petitioner’s grounds of appeal, as there were huge variations and as the petitioner failed to maintain necessary registered under Control Order, 2008, the 2nd respondent has upheld the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, vide the impugned order dated 25.01.2017. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard Sri. K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 7. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that a show cause notice was issued by the R.D.O., on 13.04.2016 to the petitioner. After affording an opportunity to the petitioner for hearing on 03.05.2016, vide orders dated 04.05.2016, the 2nd respondent has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization challenging which, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.17832 of 2016 wherein this Court has passed an order on 08.06.2016 (referred supra), directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent shall dispose of the appeal after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after conducting an independent enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who has passed the impugned order dated 25.01.2017. 8. For better appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder: 6 “As seen from the Panchanama recorded on 18.03.2015 by the Inspection Team, which was signed by the appellant admitting the variations found in the ground balances to be true and correct, is enough for the evidence that, the Dealer has failed to maintain true and correct account of the F.P. Shop business. It is beyond comprehension that, why the F.P. Shop Dealer failed to produce before the authorities, the alleged acquittance register maintained by his wife in his absence separately to the extent of ECs found short in the ground balance, as contended by the appellant. Further, the production of the so called separate acquittance register before the Appointing Authority after a lapse of 3 months from the date of inspection of the F.P.Shop, supports the findings of the RDO., Kurnool in his impugned order that, it is only an after thought to escape from the gravity of the charges. In view of the above made observations, the charges framed against the F.P.Shop Dealer that he has failed to maintain true and correct accounts and thus diverted the stocks found short in the ground balances into open market for illegal gains is held proved and hence the impugned orders cancelling the Authorization of the F.P. Shop Dealer in his proceedings No.Rc.B.251/2015 dt.04.05.2016 is accordingly upheld.” 9. From the above, it can be observed that though this Court has directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after conducting an independent enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has just considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and has dealt with the grounds of appeal, but has failed to conduct an enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. The appointing authority to frame a definite charge, shall call for the explanation of the fair price shop dealer and only in the event, the explanation was found dissatisfactory, then, appoint an enquiry officer for conducting enquiry whereat, a fair and reasonable opportunity should be accorded to the petitioner to lead such evidence and material considered necessary and appropriate by him in his defense of the charge or charge. Without 7 going through any of these motions, the authorization of a fair price shop dealer could not be cancelled. 10. In the present case, as the impugned order is silent with regard to the enquiry which was ordered to be conducted by this Court in W.P.No.17832 of 2016, the present impugned proceedings are liable to be set-aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 25.01.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and the consequential orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.B251/2015, dated 21.04.2017 are hereby set- aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent, who is the disciplinary authority as of now, for conducting an independent enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner as was directed by this Court in the order dated 08.06.2016. The said process shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 19.08.2025. Gss