V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA"^/! (Special Original Jurisdiction) T -0 V *1 X X THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27249 OF 2024 Between: Geddapu Venu, s/o Venkateswarlu Aged about 52 years, F.P. R/o Garbham Village, Merakamudidarri Mandal, Viziangaram district. Shop Dealer ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur district. 2. The District Collector, (Civil Supplies Wing) Vizianagaram district, Vizianagaram. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheepurupalli division, Vizianagaram district. 4. The Tahsildar, Merakamudidam mandal, Merakamudidam Vizianagaram district. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.255/2024/CS/Dt.31-07-2024 cancellation of the Petitioner's F.P.Shop authorization without considering the explanation and without conducting proper enquiry 'Erected by this Hon’ble Court in ■4 w f-: f W,P.No. 13376/2024 dt 27-06-2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of \ % i . principals of natural Justice and consequently set aside the same. r lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the petitioner to continue as a dealer of the F.P.Shop No.0216034 Garbham Village, Merakamudidam mandal. Vizianagaram district by suspending Rc.No.255/2024/CS/Dt. 31-07-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent pending the proceedings in disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER w APHC010526772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27249/2024 Between: Geddapu Venu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G VS MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0216034 of Garbham Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. On 10.06.2024, the 3 respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer issued show cause notice vide RC.No. 1542/2010, suspending the authorization vide proceedings in RC NO.255/2024/CS dated nil.06.2024 (signed on 18.06.2024). W.P.No. 13376 of 2024 was disposed of on 27.06.2024 directing the 2 JS,J W.P.No.27249/2024 respondents therein to conduct fresh enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and by recording the reasons there of and tiii such time, the respondents were aiso directed to continue the shop dealership. petitioner’s fair price 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the of 2024, cause notice to the petitioner on 08.07.2024, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation clearly that the statement of the complainant (Kenguva Dhanunjaya) recorded. But, the 3'^'^ respondent, without discussing the said the impugned proceedings cancelling the authorization of the shop, which is against the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order passed in W.P.No. 17971 of 2024 wherein this Court held that: orders dated 27.06.2024 W.P.No.13376 in the 3rd respondent again issued show stating was not aspect, issued petitioner’s The impugned order is expressly illegal, as no order of removal can be passed without show cause notice as held by this Court in S Malta Reddy’s case (referred supra). A perusal of the Clause 12(s) of the Control Order indicates that mere participation in political campaign does not ipso facto enable the authority to suspend or cancel the dealership unless such participation resulted in hampering the distribution system. Whereas no such observation has been made in the impugned order that the participation of the petitioner in the political campaign resulted in hampering of distribution system, even if the allegation is treated as true therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. ” \ 3 JS,J W.P,No.27249/2024 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil 4. Supplies submits that against the cancellation order, there is an appeal provision provided for the petitioner. However, the petitioner, without filing an appeal, straightaway approached this Court by filing writ petition. In S. Malta Reddy vs M. Vijayalakshmi and others^ this Court held 5. as follows: “4. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that no show cause notice was ever served on the writ petitioner calling upon the writ petitioner that for the charges levelled against her, why her authorization be not cancelled. This aspect of the matter was taken notice of by learned single Judge. The relevant Distribution Order itself requires issuance of show cause notice to the fair price shop dealer in case for any reason, the authorization is sought to be cancelled. In other words, the authorization cannot be cancelled without following the principles of natural justice, which includes issuance of show cause notice mentioning therein the various charges on which the authorization is sought to be cancelled, calling upon the fair price shop dealer to submit his/her explanation to the show cause notice and then holding an enquiry and passing appropriate orders after hearing the fair price shop dealer. In the instant case, no show cause notice was issued for cancellation of the authorization. The show cause notice issued was only for suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, on that basis, further action for cancelling the authorization could not have been taken without following the procedure established in law and for that reason, the order of cancellation is rendered bad in law. There will be no need for the Joint Collector to take up the appeal before him since the order of cancellation is to be set aside having been passed without following the principles of natural justice. ” It is clear from the impugned proceedings, dated 31.07.2024 that on the 6. report submitted by the Tahsildar, the respondent authorities have issued the said cancellation proceedings, which is in violation of principles of natural 2005 (3) ALT 300 4 JS,J W.P.No.27249/2024 justice. Before issuing the impugned notice, the respondent ought to have given an opportunity by calling for explanation. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order issued by the 3^^ respondent vide proceedings in RC.NO.255/2024/CS, dated 31.07.2024, and restore the 7. authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. However, it is open to the respondent authorities to take action by following the due procedure contemplated under law. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall 8. be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEdTOfr^FFICER i To 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur district. 2. The District Collector, (Civil Supplies Wing) Vizianagaram district, Vizianagaram. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheepurupalli division, Vizianagaram district. 4. The Tahsildar, Merakamudidam mandal Vizianagaram district. Merakamudidam 5. One CC to Sri G V S Mehar Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies TF V HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.27249 of 2024 o 0 4 APR 2C25 ^ . Currewl SectJdn ^^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS