APHC010518672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE WRIT APPEAL NO: 139/2025 Between: Smt. M.Aruna, ...APPELLANT AND The District Collector and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE: 18.03.2025 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the orders dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.29809 of 2013, the petitioner in the said writ petition preferred this intra Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts that led to filing of the writ appeal, in brief, are that: (a) The petitioner/appellant herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.50, Madanapalle and has been running the shop very smoothly without any complaints whatsoever. While so, upon the enquiry made by inspecting officers on 27.05.2009, they have found the following irregularities: (i) that the F.P.shop dealer is running the F.P.Shop without valid authorization. (ii) that she is not maintaining key register. (iii) that the complaint box has not been maintained by the F.P.Shop dealer. (iv) that the dealer has not submitted coupons for 11.37 quintals of rice and not mentioned in stock register. Based on the above report and tahsildar’s report, the RDO had cancelled the authorization of the petitioner to run fair price shop vide proceedings D.Dis.No.(A3)/2707/2009 dated 18.08.2009. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, which was dismissed vide proceedings dated 20.08.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred revision before the District Collector, who, in turn, dismissed the revision vide proceedings dated 10.02.2013. (b) It is the case of the petitioner that, despite submission of her explanation, the Joint Collector and District collector, being unsatisfied with the grounds raised in the explanation, have dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and revision respectively, holding that, the charges held against her are proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the W.P.No.29809 of 2013, which was also dismissed on the ground that, the cancellation order was not issued in violation of any clause in Control order, 2008 and the same needs no interference. Hence the writ appeal. 3. Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein while reiterating the grounds of appeal and contents of the writ affidavit submitted that, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned single judge had failed to see that, based on the tahsildar’s report, the RDO has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner, without conducting any independent enquiry by examining witnesses and giving opportunity to the dealer to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned Single Judge failed to see that, the primary authority/appellate authority/revisional authority, failed to follow the procedural law in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Though the grounds which are not raised, before the primary authority/appellate authority/revisional authority, are raised before the learned single judge, as the question of law can be raised at any stage, those are not appreciated. Further, the learned single judge failed to notice that, the tahsildar’s report, on which, the RDO has placed reliance, while cancelling the authorization, was never provided to the petitioner, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. As such prayed to allow the writ appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader while justifying the order of the learned Single Judge contended that, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on valid grounds. The petitioner/appellant hererin has not raised any valid ground warranting the interference of this Court and the writ appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner’s (appellant herein) fair price shop under proceedings dated 18.08.2009 basing on the irregularities stipulated in the enquiry made by the inspecting officers and the report of the tahsildar. Assailing the same, an appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector, Ananthapur District, who, in turn, dismissed the appeal, holding that, the charges held against her are proved beyond the reasonable doubt and confirmed the orders of the RDO. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred a revision before District Collector, which was also dismissed on the same grounds. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29809 of 2013, which was also dismissed on 16.07.20224. The learned Single Judge observed that, the explanation given by the petitioner is unfounded and could not be established and if at all the petitioner requires any detailed enquiry by examination of witnesses, a request could have been made, but such request was never made. The learned single Judge further observed that, the explanation given by the petitioner that, she had distributed the rice on the oral instructions of the officials, is not appreciable and in violation of provisions of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, which requires maintenance of the register. The learned Single Judge had concluded that, as the petitioner had acted in violation of provisions of Control Order, 2008, the authorities have rightly dismissed her case. 8. As could be observed from the record, the main grievance of the petitioner/appellant herein is that 3rd respondent (RDO) had straight away passed cancellation orders only basing on the tahsildar’s report, without considering the explanation submitted by petitioner/appellant herein. 9. Moreover, the power of RDO to impose penalties on fair price shop dealers is derived from sub-clause (5) of Clause 5 of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. The said provision reads as under: “The appointing authority may, at any time whether at the request of the authorized fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker or authorized establishment on suo motu after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, add to, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him under this clause.” The clause reproduced above enjoins on the appointing authority to follow two mandatory conditions before imposing any penalty as envisaged therein. The first, it shall make an ‘enquiry’ as deemed necessary; and the second, it shall record reasons in writing. As per the Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus, Indian Edition – 2007, meaning of the word ‘enquiry’ includes probe, examine, explore, and delve into. The word ‘enquiry’ fell for judicial interpretation by the Apex Court in the context of service law jurisprudence. It was held by Apex Court that enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that they do not become empty formalities. 10. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop dealer visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government Servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an ‘enquiry’ which in our view must be as described infra. Further, an enquiry pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing including recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, and in case where either card holders or other persons sent any compliant, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer and also an opportunity of cross-examination shall be given to such persons. Further, as stated above, the concerned authority has to supply all the reports to the dealer, on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, the RDO has relied on the report of the tahsildar but the said report, as could be seen, was not supplied to the petitioner/appellant herein and also the recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses was not done. Therefore, without adhering to such procedure, issuing orders in such a manner amounts to passing the orders behind the back of the dealer/petitioner. 11. Unfortunately, a perusal of the RDO’s order shows that he has not attempted to hold an independent enquiry and he has allowed himself to be swayed away by the report of the Tahsildar, without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered by the petitioner/appellant herein. The learned single judge failed to appreciate the said aspects while dismissing the writ petition. As the respondent no.3 has not followed the said procedure and passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice, the order vide proceedings D.Dis.No.(A3)/2707/2009 dated 18.08.2009, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. As a corollary, the orders of the respondent no.2 & 1 vide proceedings dated 20.08.2010 and 10.02.2013 respectively, were also set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration in light of the observations made herein. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,J RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J BRS