1 VS,J W.P.No.36847 of 2017 APHC010851952017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36847/2017 Between: 1. RAYANI KOTESWARA RAO, S/O CHANDRALAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O ANDUGULA KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VINUKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order A.C.D. Dis.No.6/2017-S7 dated 25-05- 2017 on the file of the Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Guntur, in confirming the orders passed by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, in Rc. No. 4802/2015-B dated 15-11-2016, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also contrary to the provisions of A.P. Public Distribution System Control Order 2008 and pass 2 VS,J W.P.No.36847 of 2017 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 45753 OF 2017 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 direct the respndents not to make any permanent appointment of F.P. Shop Dealer in respect of F.P.Shop No.19 of A. Kothapalem Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 45754 OF 2017 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 suspend the order A.C.D.Dis.No.6/2017-S7 cateu 25-05-2017 on the file of the Joint Collector 85 Addl. District Magistrate, Guntur, in confirming the orders passed by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, in Rc.No.4802/2015- B dated 15-11-2016, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.36847 of 2017 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36847/2017 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the impugned order A.C.D.Dis.No.6/2017-S7, dated 25.05.2017 on the file of the Joint Collector and Addl. District Magistrate, Guntur, in confirming the orders passed by the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, in Rc.No.4802/2015-B dated 15.11.2016, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also contrary to the provisions of A.P. Public Distribution System Control Order 2008 and pass such orders...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer on 06.02.2008 in respect of Shop No.19 of Andugula Kothapalem Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District. He continued as dealer without any complaint till 2014. On earlier occasions, suspension orders were passed but were set aside by this Court, directing enquiry. 4. Once again, a show cause notice was issued in Rc.No.4802/2015-B dated 28.05.2016 leveling certain charges, to which the petitioner submitted an explanation on 08.06.2016 denying all the allegations. 4 VS,J W.P.No.36847 of 2017 5. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop by order dated 20.07.2016 without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.27210/2016, which was disposed of by this Court on 12.08.2016 directing the 3rd respondent to complete the enquiry within two months after affording reasonable opportunity. In pursuance of the same, notice dated 17.09.2016 was issued fixing personal hearing on 23.09.2016. The petitioner appeared on the said date, but no enquiry was conducted. Instead, after the said date was over, the 3rd respondent obtained a report dated 14.11.2016 from the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Vinukonda, said to be based on statements of some cardholders, and without furnishing a copy of the said report to the petitioner or examining the persons whose statements were relied upon, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide Rc.No.2756/2016-B dated 15.11.2016. 6. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent was dismissed on 25.05.2017, confirming the order of cancellation. 7. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent relied upon material collected behind the back of the petitioner, namely, the report dated 14.11.2016 of the Deputy Tahsildar, without furnishing the same to the petitioner or affording an opportunity of hearing. This is in clear violation of the order dated 12.08.2016 in W.P.No.27210/2016 as well as the principles of natural justice. 5 VS,J W.P.No.36847 of 2017 8. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the report of the Deputy Tahsildar was procured after the date fixed for personal hearing and that it was not supplied to the petitioner, nor were the persons whose statements were referred to in the said report examined. 9. Thus, it is evident that material collected behind the back of the petitioner was relied upon by the 3rd respondent to cancel his authorization. Even though the petitioner raised this specific contention before the 2nd respondent, the appellate authority did not advert to the same and confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent. 10. In my considered opinion, the respondents could not have relied upon such material collected in violation of the principles of natural justice to cancel the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. 11. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 25.05.2017 and by the 3rd respondent dated 15.11.2016 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent to furnish a copy of the report of the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Vinukonda, dated 14.11.2016 to the petitioner, give him personal hearing, permit him to file objections thereto, and thereafter pass fresh orders in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 6 VS,J W.P.No.36847 of 2017 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.01.09.2025 JLV