1 APHC010569672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29613/2024 Between: 1. UDARAGUDI CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. NAGULU, AGED 49 YEARS, FP SHOP DELAR, SHOP. NO.0845048, R/O. H.NIDAMANURU VILLAGE, NAGALUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 3. THE COLLECTORCS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, NAGALUPPLAPADU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. THE ADDL FOOD INSPECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 7. YERRAMALA ANITHA, W/O VENKATESWARLU , AGED 30 YEARS, SRINIVASA GROUP MEMBER, APPOINTED AS TEMPORARY FP SHOP DEALER OF H.NIDAMANURU VILLAGE, NAGALUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.11.03.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025. 2 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action 4th Respondent-R.D.O., Ongole, who suspended the authorisation of the petitioner through his proceedings, dated 28-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3154/2024, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the sprit of Judgements of this Honble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set aside the proceedings of 4th Respondent-R.D.O., Ongole dt.28-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3154/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop No 0845048 of H Nidamanuru Village, Nagaluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to stay the proceeding of orders of lerned R.D.O., Ongole(4th respondent). dated 28-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3154/2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such 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 implead the petitioner herein as respondent no 7 in W.P.No.29613 of 2024 and pass IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to permit the petitioner to impled proposed 7th respondent as party in this W.P. No:29613/2024 and also in the pending Interlocutory Application as Respondent No.7 therein, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 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 Mandamus, declaring the action 4th Respondent-R.D.O., Ongole, who suspended the authorisation of the petitioner through his proceedings, dated 28-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3154/2024, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the sprit of Judgements of this Honble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set aside the proceedings of 4th Respondent-R.D.O., Ongole dt.28-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3154/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop No 0845048 of H Nidamanuru Village, Nagaluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District and pass such….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0845048 of H. Nidamanuru village, Nagulappalapadumandal, Prakasam District in the year 2004 and has been distributing essential commodities to cardholders ever since. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 03.09.2024, the 6th respondent along with Mandal Revenue Inspector, N.G. Padu, has inspected the petitioner’s shop and came to a conclusion that 1600 kilograms of rice was found in excess, which the petitioner was ready to lift into a vehicle. Thereafter, the 6th respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner herein and has also submitted a report to the 4th respondent. Subsequent to seizure of the petitioner’s stock, the petitioner has submitted several representations to the respondent authorities 5 for release of the seized stocks and further to allot essential commodities to his fair price shop; as no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23575 of 2024 before this Court, wherein, this Court has passed an order on 19.10.2024 with a direction to the respondents to allot commodities to the petitioner, till his authorization is in force. 4. Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by the 6th respondent, the 4th respondent, without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, vide impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2024 has suspended the petitioner’s dealership of the fair price shop. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The 7th respondent – unofficial respondent, has filed a detailed counter affidavit duly denying the contentions raised by the petitioner and further stated that the 6th respondent has rightly suspended the authorization of the petitioner temporarily, till finalization of the disciplinary proceedings as prima facie case is made out against the petitioner in carrying out misappropriation of rice. It is further stated that though show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.10.2024, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation within stipulated time, as such, the present impugned proceedings were issued which need not be interfered. Hence, requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri. Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri. K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the 7th respondent. 6 7. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2024 would go to show that the suspension order is passed by the 4th respondent basing on a report submitted by 6th respondent. Even in the reference, though a show cause notice in Rc.No.1/3154/2024, dated 16.10.2024 is referred, nowhere in the impugned proceedings it is mentioned as to whether it was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation. It was alleged in the counter affidavit of the unofficial respondent that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation, but, no such show cause notice was produced before this Court to prove that the same was served on the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner putting him on notice about the report submitted by the 6th respondent, which is against the principles of natural justice. 8. 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.” 9. 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. 7 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. 10. Earlier, a similar question came up before the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Oleti Tirupathamma’s case (1 supra) wherein the Court held as follows – “A statutory authority, it is trite, must act within the four corners of the statute in terms of the statutory orders and procedure laid down to suspend the licence. As already noticed hereinbefore, the authorities under the relevant orders have power to suspend the authorisation or licence of the dealer. Without applying its mind and without taking recourse thereto, the Court should not normally permit the authorities, unless extraordinary situation exists, to allow them to do something indirectly, which they cannot do it directly. If a broad proposition to this effect is laid down, the same, in a given case may amount to abuse of the process of law. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, acts sentinel qui vive and thus it has to protect the citizen from arbitrary and capricious action of the executive. If the licensing authority themselves upon 8 application of mind come to the conclusion that the irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer would warrant suspension of his licence, it may do so. But, in our considered opinion, the authority without taking recourse to the said action, cannot, refuse to supply the essential commodities. In the event an order of suspension of licence is passed, the authorities will have to make an alternative arrangement. But, in a case of this nature, the card holders would be the worst sufferers inasmuch their essential commodities would not be supplied to them at all.” 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2024 passed by the 4th respondent are hereby set-aside. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty initiate action against the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, by duly following the principles of natural justice. It is needless to state that the respondent authorities shall supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop, till he is found at fault. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :10.09.2025. Gss