APHC010458592015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 42967/2015 Between: 1. L.RAMA DEVI,, W/O. G.V.SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, (SUSPENSION), SHOP NO.15, D.NO.7/112, K.SUNKESULA VILLAGE, KHAJIPET MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR Y S R DISTRICT KADAPA, - 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KADAPA REVENUE DIVISION, KADAPA, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR KHAJIPET MANDAL Y S R 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 toIssue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref No.C/1091/2015, dated 19-12-2015 issued by the respondent No.3 ordering cancellation of the petitioner authorization as Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No.15, situated in D.No.7/112, K.Sunkesula, Village, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R District as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the 2 VS,J W.P.No.42967 of 2015 Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and also the well settled legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioner under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 55408 OF 2015 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 respondent No.4 to release the Essential Commodities to petitioner Fair Price Shop No.15 situated in D.No3/112, K.Sunkesula, Village, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R District by suspending the proceedings in Ref. No.C/1091/2015, dated 19-12-2015 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.42967 of 2015 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.42967 of 2015 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 proceedings in Ref.No.C/1091/2015, dated 19.12.2015 issued by the respondent No.3 ordering cancellation of the petitioner authorization as Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No.15, situated in D.No.7/112, K.Sunkesula Village, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R District as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and also the well settled legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioner under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.15, D.No.7/112, K.Sunkesula Village, Khajipet Mandal, on a permanent basis in the year, 2005. In pursuance thereof, the authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of the said appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, on 20.07.2015 the respondents have conducted an inspection over the petitioner’s shop and found a variation of 32 liters of kerosene as against the allotted stock of 653 liters of kerosene for the month of July, 2015. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 29.07.2015 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within a period of 7 days 4 VS,J W.P.No.42967 of 2015 from the date of receipt of the same. In response, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 04.08.2015. In spite of the same, the 3rd respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization on 22.08.2015 on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.27426 of 2015, which was allowed by this Court on 31.08.2015, as under:- “…In view of the charge of difference of 32 liters of kerosene compared to the total quantity of 653 liters and also in view of the fact that the only one charge was leveled against the petitioner, this Court feels that power of suspension was not properly exercised by the third respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.08.2015 is set aside to the extent of suspension. However, the third respondent shall proceed with the enquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 31.08.2015, the 3rd respondent herein passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2015 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization even without conducting any enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.27426 of 2015. 5. Though the matter pertains to the year 2015, till date no counter has been filed by the respondents. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies . 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 19.12.2015, it can be observed that except referring to the earlier suspension order dated 22.08.2015, which was in fact set 5 VS,J W.P.No.42967 of 2015 aside by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2015 in W.P.No.27426 of 2015, nowhere it has been referred as to whether any notice was given to the petitioner, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, calling the petitioner to attend for an enquiry. However, in the impugned order, it is stated that the 3rd respondent himself has visited the petitioner’s shop on 25.11.2015 and have enquired with the cardholders as well as the petitioner. Except stating so, nowhere it is mentioned as to whether any enquiry was conducted in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court dated 31.08.2015, by giving notice to the petitioner, affording her an opportunity of hearing and conducting an enquiry before passing the impugned orders. It is also very surprising to see that the 3rd respondent himself has visited the shop on 25.11.2015 and suo motu enquired the cardholders and also questioned the petitioner, without giving any notice to her regarding his inspection on 25.11.2015. 8. In view of the fact that the 3rd respondent has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner even without conducting any enquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as directed by this Court in W.P.No.27426 of 2015, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2015 and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry after giving notice to the petitioner as well as affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No order as to costs. 6 VS,J W.P.No.42967 of 2015 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :01.09.2025 JLV