IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 29297 OF 2024 Between: Sikhakollu Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Late Anjaiah, Aged about 60 Occ. Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No.0883012, R/o KandukurTown and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. years ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The Joint Collector (CS), SPSR Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Sub Collector, Kandukur, SPSR Nellore District. 5. The Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 6. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal, SPSR Nellore 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 be pleased to issue may an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned Rc.F.460/2024, dated 22.11.2024, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner to Price Shop No. 0883012, Kandukur Town and Mandal run the Fair SPSR Nellore t District, without conducting proper enquiry and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the material available on record, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others (2015 (3) ALD 617) and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No. 0883012, Kandukur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District by supplying the essential commodities. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings in Rc.F.460/2024, dated 22.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No. 0883012, Kandukur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Counsel for the Respondents no.1 to 6: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER I r <5 APHC010559422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) inu^lB [3311] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 29297/2024 Between; ...PETITIONER Sikhakollu Venkata Subba Rao AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PV VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order; This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of ‘Writ of Mandamus’ declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned Rc.F.460/2024, dated 22.11.2024 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No.0883012, Kandukur Town and Mandal SPSR Nellore District, without conducting proper enquiry and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the material available on record, being illegal. 2 arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others (2015 (3) ALD 617) and violative of Articles 14 and '19('')(g) of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No.0883012 Kandukur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District by supplying the essential commodities and pass The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a dealer of fair price shop No.0883012 of Kandukur Municipality, Kandukur Mandal, Prakasam District. He further submitted that without following the due procedure of law for conducting an enquiry, the order vide Rc.F/460/2024, dated 22.11.2024 was passed cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Additionally, he contended that even if the alleged variation is considered true, it remains within the permissible limits, or at most marginally exceeds them, and does not justify the extreme measure of cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. 02. 03. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 4^*^ respondent, dated 12.12.2024. He further submitted that since there is variation in the stock, the authorization of the petitioner was canceled. He further submitted that, as per the impugned order, the petitioner should have filed an appeal before the Collector (CS), SPSR Nellore District, Nellore, but the petitioner cannot file the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the absence of adherence to the principles of natural justice or the prescribedlegal procedure as outlined by this Court, the petitioner was compelled to file the present writ petition. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra 04. 3 Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others, (2015) 6 ALD 359 ; (2015) 6 ALT 791, wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: 27. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn, (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order, (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriateorders in accordancewith the Control Order. \ \ 4 (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal, (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning. As evident from the charge leveled against the petitioner, the sole allegation is that there was an excess stock of 118 Kgs of rice, compared to the total stock of 7,604 Kgs. 05. As per Clause 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, a variation of up to 1.5% of the commodity per month is permissible. If the excess stock in the present case is taken into account, the variation is nearly within the permissible limit, or at most, marginally exceeds it. Therefore, this is not a case where the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.0883012 should be canceled. Without taking these factors into proper consideration and solely relying on the explanation provided by the petitioner dated 04.11.2024, the impugned order was passed. Furthermore, the non-application of mind is apparent from the impugned order, as it takes a harsh stance in canceling the petitioner’s dealership for what appears to be a frivolous reason. Therefore, this case warrants intervention in the impugned order. 06. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order vide Rc.F/460/2024, dated 22.11.2024. 07. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY,REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The Joint Collector (CS), SPSR Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Sub Collector, Kandukur, SPSR Nellore District. 5. The Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 6. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 7. One CC to SRI. P. V. VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 8. TwoCCsto GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three C.D.Copies Nm » HIGH COURT I DATED:08/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.29297 of 2024 ^ . Currant Section ^ 0 7 FEB 2025 .v<^ Co ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS