1 APHC010458542025 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: 23783/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA,, S/O SHAIK MOHIDDIN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O D.NO. 105/31, RAYALAPANTHULAPAILI VILLAGE, C.K. DINNE MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA DIVISION, YSR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, C.K. DINNE MANDAL, YSR 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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 vide Ref.No.F/759/2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent through the 4th Respondent suspending the Petitioners authorization for Fair Price Shop No.1132010, Rayalapanthulapalli Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, YSR District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and 2 Articles 14, 19 1 (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the said suspension order and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the renewal of the Petitioners authorization by taking into account the challans, APTC Form-10, and other renewal applications submitted by the Petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 consider the Petitioner’s renewal applications and receipts (APTC Form-10, Challans, etc.) and regularize the authorization of the Fair Price Shop with retrospective effect and release the seized stock and allow the Petitioner to resume operations of Fair Price Shop No.1132010, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMESH VODNALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 vide Ref.No.F/759/2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent through the 4th Respondent suspending the Petitioners authorization for Fair Price Shop No.1132010, Rayalapanthulapalli Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, YSR District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 1 (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the said suspension order and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the renewal of the Petitioners authorization by taking into account the challans, APTC Form-10, and other renewal applications submitted by the Petitioner and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.113200, Rayalapanthulapalle village, C.K. Dinnemandal vide proceedings dated 29.06.2012 and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without any complaint. As the said allotment was valid up to 31.03.2013, the petitioner had submitted applications for renewal of his authorization from time to time. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has been paying renewal fees from time to time, the respondent authorities have failed to update and renew the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 02.07.2025, the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials along with Revenue officials have conducted an inspection in the petitioner’s fair price shop and have seized the available 4 stock alleging that the petitioner’s authorization had expired on 31.03.2013 itself. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without giving an opportunity of hearing, the respondent authorities, vide impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2025 have suspended the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2025, it can be seen that on 02.07.2025, the petitioner’s fair price shop has been inspected by the respondent officials who found that the validity of authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop expired on 31.03.2013. Observing thus, the petitioner was alleged to have violated Clause 8 of sub-clause 11 of Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and accordingly, the dealership authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop bearing No.1132010, Rayalapanthulapalle village, C.K. Dinne mandal was suspended pending enquiry. But, the impugned proceedings are silent as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation. Without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, solely relying on a report submitted by the 4th respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization, which is against the principles of natural justice. 5 6. 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.” 7. In 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 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. 6 8. As the respondent authorities took an adverse action against the petitioner vide the impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2025, without affording him an opportunity of hearing or without issuing a show cause notice, the impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2025 are liable to be set-aside. 9. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent are hereby set-aside by directing the respondent authorities to verify their records as to whether the petitioner has paid the requisite renewal fee as contended by him and thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice. Till such time, the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No.113200, Rayalapanthulapalle village, C.K. Dinne mandal. 10. 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