rj T- M APHC010764702016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) w B SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2138 OF 2016 Between: Smt.Sinde Uma Bai, D/o.Ramakrishna Rao, Aged about 31 years, Occ: F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.lO-A, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Joint Collector Kurnool District Kurnool A. P. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool, Kurnool District, A.P. 3. The Tahsildar Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District A. P. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal, Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the Authorization of the Petitioner F.P.Shop No.lOA, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District vide Proceedings Rc.B.3321/2010, dt.28.10.2015, as being illegal, arbitrary, ultravires and consequently set-aside the same. * lA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 792 OF 2016 Between: 1. The Joint Collector Kurnool District Kurnool A. P. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool, Kurnool District, A.P. 3. The Tahsildar Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District A. P. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal, Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Respondents in WP AND Smt.Sinde Uma Bai, D/o.Ramakrishna Rao, Aged about 31 years, Occ; F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.lO-A, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P. ...Respondent/Petitioner in WP 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 vacate the interim orders dt.27.02.2016, in WPMP No.2707/16, WP No.2138/16. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. V. N. BHUPAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010764702016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] r SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2138/2016 Between: 1.SMT.SINDE UMA BAI,, D/O.RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.10-A, DHONE TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1 .THE JOINT COLLECTOR KURNOOL DISTRICT KURNOOL A P, - 2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. 3.THE TAHSILDAR PEAPULLY MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT A P, - 4.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. ...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 to Issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the Authorization of the Petitioner F.P.Shop No.lOA, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District vide Proceedings Rc.B.3321/2010, dt.28.10.2015, as being illegal, arbitrary, ultravires and consequently set-aside the same and to pass 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 792 OF 2016 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 to vacate the interim orders dt.27.02.2016, in WPMP No.2707/16, WP No.2138/16. lA NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP 2707 OF 2016 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 direct the Respondents herein to permit the petitioner herein to continue F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.lOA, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, by suspending the impugned Proceedings Rc.B.3321/2010, dt.28.10.2015, issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: as 1.KVN BHUPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2138 of 2016 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 difection more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2”^ respondent in cancelling the Authorization of the Petitioner F.P.Shop N0.IOA, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District vide Proceedings Rc.B.3321/2010, dt.28.10.2015, as being illegal, arbitrary, ultravires and consequently set-aside the same and to pass....” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop N0.IO-A of Dhone town and mandal, Kurnool District vide proceedings dated 20.04.2010 of the 2"^^ respondent and has been distributing commodities to the cardholders ever since. 3. While the matter stood thus, in pursuance of a paper clipping published in A.P. District Edition in Kurnool with the caption 'Black Market Ku Taralivelthunna Ration Biyyam’ on 08.11.2010, basing on the recommendation of Mandal nd Revenue Inspector, the 2 respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop vide proceedings dated 31.03.2010, which were challenged by the petitioner before the 1®* respondent by way of an appeal and the same was disposed of with a direction to the 2'^'* respondent to finalize the case by 15.04.2011 subject to a condition that suspension would be stayed if the enquiry is not completed by 15.04.2011. As such, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.04.2011 framing three charges against her, to 4 which, the petitioner has submitted her explanation, however, the 2"" respondent, on 15.04.2011 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization without verifying the relevant registers. Challenging the said cancellation order dated 15.04.2011, the petitioner has again preferred an appeal before the I^Vespondent, who after verifying the relevant records has remanded the case back to the 2""^ respondent for re enquiry into the charges framed duly affording an opportunity to the petitioner as there were no substantive evidence in support of either side to arrive at a decision of cancellation.As the 2"'' respondent has not concluded the enquiry, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4209 of 2012 wherein, this Court has passed an order on 21.02.2012, which reads as under: 4. In that view of the matter, I consider it appropriate to allow the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry in the presence of the writ petitioner duly examining the sales register and the ration cards where entries would be made with regard to sales that have been carried out etc, and provide due opportunity to the petitioner and then alone conclude the entire enquiry.” ‘4. Pursuant to the said order, the 2""' respondent has requested the 3 respondent to re-examine the issue, who in turn has directed the Mandal 5. rd Revenue Inspector to submit a fresh report. Accordingly, Mandal Revenue Inspector has submitted a report to the 2'’^espondent by framing three charges, basing on which, the 2""* respondent issued another show cause notice dated 06.08.2012 and the petitioner was directed to appear before him 18.08.2012. Despite there being on order of this Court, as the 2"'' respondent was not concluding the enquiry, the petitioner filed a contempt case in C.C.No.1182 of 2015, pending which, the 2"'’ respondent, basing on the show cause notice dated new on 06.08.2012 has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 28.10.2015, without conducting an independent enquiry. Challenging the proceedings dated 28.10.2015, the present writ petition is filed. 6. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 27.01.2016, this Court has passed an interim direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer of shop No.lOA, Dhone town and mandal, Kurnool district by suspending the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2015, pending disposal of the present petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the above interim order, the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer even as on today. 7. The respondents have filed a detailed counter along with a vacate stay petition stating that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4209 of 2012 on 08.12.2011, the Tahsildar, Dhone has re-enquired into the matter and submitted his report dated 15.05.2012. Thereafter, the RDO, Kurnool issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.2012 seeking explanation from the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to appear on 18.08.2012 for enquiry. The petitioner failed to appear before the respondent authorities for enquiry on 18.08.2012, but has submitted her explanation on 27.08.2012 denying the charges leveled against her. Considering her explanation, the RDO, Kurnool, vide proceedings dated 28.10.2015 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. It is stated that the said orders was passed basing on the orders of the Joint Collector, Kurnool and in compliance to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. As such, requested this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 6 191 Heard Sri. K.V.N. Bhupal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 8. 9. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it can be understood that, initially, based on a paper clipping published in the district edition of the newspaper, several allegations were leveled against the petitioner herein and during the said course, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has recommended the 2"'^respondent for suspension of the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop dealership and accordingly, the 2'"'’ respondent has issued proceedings dated 31.03.2010, challenging which the petitioner approached the 1®' respondent by way of an appeal, wherein, the 2"'^ respondent was directed to finalize the case within a stipulated time and in compliance of the same, the 2 respondent, after issuing a show cause notice has again suspended the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 15.04.2011. The said proceedings were again challenged by the petitioner before the 1®Vespondent who remanded the matter back to the 2"^ respondent for re-enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner herein. As the said order was not complied with by the 2^^ respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4209 of 2012 and succeeded in obtaining an order on 21.02.2012, wherein the 2"^^ respondent was directed to conduct an enquiry in the presence of the petitioner after duly examining the sale register and ration cards. Pursuant to the same, the 2 nd nd respondent has delegated his powers to respondent No.3 for conducting re enquiry and based on the orders of the 3'''‘respondent, the Mandal Revenue Inspector submitted a fresh report relying upon which, the 2^"^ respondent issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.2012. As there was no progress, the petitioner 7 filed a contempt case before this Court, pending which, the 2 passed the impugned order dated 28.10.201 S.Subsequently, the said contempt case was closed as this Court having found no contempt on the part of the respondents as they have passed an order in compliance to the order dated 21.02.2012. nd respondent has It can be observed from the impugned proceedings that though this Court has directed the 2""^ respondent to conclude the independent enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner, the 2'^'* respondent has just considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and has dealt with the grounds of appeal, but has failed to conduct an enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. The appointing authority has to frame a definite charge, call for the explanation of the fair price shop dealer and only in the event, the explanation was found dissatisfactory, then, appoint an enquiry officer for conducting enquiry whereat, a fair and reasonable opportunity should be accorded to the petitioner to lead such evidence and material considered necessary and appropriate by him in his defense of the charge or charge. Without going through any of these motions, the authorization of a fair price shop dealer could not be cancelled. 10. 11. In the present case, as the impugned order is silent with regard to the enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.4209 of 2012, the present impugned proceedings are liable to be set-aside. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2015 passed by the 2'^’^ respondent are hereby set-aside. Further, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of 8 shop N0.IOA, Dhone town and mandal, Kurnool District, until and unless there is no further complaint as against her. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. u made absolute as above witness the Hon me Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur, The Chief Justice on this Saturday, The Thietieth day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Joint Collector Kurnool District Kurnool A. P. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool, Kurnool District, A.P. 3. The Tahsildar, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District A. P. 4. The Principal, Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri K. V. N. Bhupal, Advocate [OPUC] 6. TwoCCsto GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:30/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 2138 OF 2016 allowing the W P WITHOUT COSTS