APHC010573172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE WRIT APPEAL NO: 122/2025 Between: Chinna Nagamma ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE: 28.03.2025 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 23.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.18006 of 2024, 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 B.T.Project village, vide F.P.Shop No.1219007, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District and has been distributing the commodities to the cardholders. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer(RDO), Kalyandurg, Anantapur District, basing on the letter of tahsildar (5th respondent) dated 25.06.2023, issued a show cause notice dated 05.07.2023 to the petitioner alleging that she had failed to maintain true and correct accounts and thus violated clause 12(p)(3) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (in short, ‘the Control Order, 2018’) and committed certain irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities. In spite of submitting explanation, the RDO had cancelled the authorization of the petitioner to run fair price shop, as per clause 21-C of the Control Order, 2018 vide proceedings dated 28.07.2023, without considering the explanation in a right perspective. The RDO, it appears from the order dated 28.07.2023, had framed three charges, which according to the said order were proved. It was held that the appellant, as a fair price shop dealer, had not maintained proper ground balances of essential commodities and that those variations beyond the permissible limits of rice and other commodities were stocked in the premises. (b) According to the findings recorded by the RDO, the rice meant for public distribution of the card holders had been purchased with a view to do clandestine business by diverting the same into the black market. Against the said order passed by the RDO, the appellant herein had preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector in terms of Clause 24 (a) of the Control Order, 2018 and the same was dismissed confirming the cancellation orders. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant had filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.18006 of 2024 before this Court which was also dismissed on 23.09.20024 on the ground that, there is an efficacious alternate remedy by way of revision before the District Collector, Ananthapur against the orders passed by the Joint Collector. Assailing the same, the appellant had preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, 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 appreciate the fact that, in the cancellation order, the 4th respondent has incorporated the same contents including paragraphs of the explanation submitted to the allegations by the petitioner to show cause notice and no proper enquiry was conducted as per Clause 5(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that there is an alternative remedy available by way of filing revision before the District Collector. Further, the learned Single Judge failed to consider that, in view of the law declared, the Quasi-Judicial authority failed to conduct proper enquiry as per law. In view of the same, no revision needs to be filed before the District Collector as mentioned in the writ petition. Hence, the writ appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader while justifying the order of the learned Single Judge contended that, when there is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner by way of filing revision before the District Collector, the petitioner cannot knock the doors of this Court and file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the said ground. The petitioner 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 28.07.2023 on the ground that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities. Assailing the same, an appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector, Ananthapur District, who, in turn, dismissed the appeal, holding that, the petitioner has failed to maintain the stocks into black market for doing clandestine business for her pecuniary gains and also running the FP Shop without valid license by contravening the clauses 12 p (3), 25 (d) and 8 (11) (c) of the Control Order, 2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge solely on the ground that there is an alternative remedy available by way of filing revision before the District Collector, Ananthapuramu against the orders passed by the Joint Collector as per Clause 24(b) of the Control Order, 2018. The learned Single Judge further observed that, the only ground is that the enquiry was not done by examination of witnesses and a fact can be proved not just in one method. If documents prove a fact, it cannot be said that because of no oral evidence, such fact is not proved. The authorities have rightly appreciated the matter in the case. 8. As could be observed from the record, the main grievance of the petitioner is that 4th respondent (RDO) had straight away passed cancellation orders only basing on the tahsildar’s report, without considering the explanation submitted by petitioner, without conducting an enquiry and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to her. Accepting the case of the petitioner, it can safely be said that the 4th respondent grossly violated one of the principles of natural justice that no man can be condemned unheard. 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, 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 letter of the tahsildar dated 25.06.2023 but the said letter was not supplied to the petitioner. 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 even attempted to hold an 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. The learned single judge erred in appreciating the said aspects while dismissing the writ petition. As the respondent no.4 has not followed the said procedure and passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice, driving the petitioner towards alternative remedy does not arise and the order vide proceedings Rc.No.B2/1262/2023 dated 28.07.2023, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The order of the respondent no.3 dated 19.07.2024 vide Rc.No.K6/436/2023, which confirmed the order of the respondent no.4 is also set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry in the 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