APHC010551512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28950/2025 Between: 1. K JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S/O. K. MUNUSWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER NO. 1051022, R/O. 9-5,B, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, PUTHALAPATTU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PUTHALAPATTU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 toPleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization the petitioner Fair price shop No. 1051022 in Ramapuram Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, vide proceedings. No. D. Dis(G)/1573/2025 dated 29.09.2025 without H conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article of 14,19 and 21 and also violation of control order, 2018 Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the 2 VS,J W.P.No.28950 of 2025 petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in F.P. shop No. 1051022 in Ramapuram Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District and pass 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings. No. D. Dis{G)/1573/2025 dated 29.09.2025 of the petitioner by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in F.P.shop No1051022 in Ramapuram Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.28950 of 2025 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 action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization the petitioner Fair price shop No. 1051022 in Ramapuram Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, vide proceedings. No. D. Dis(G)/1573/2025 dated 29.09.2025 without H conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article of 14,19 and 21 and also violation of control order, 2018 Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in F.P. shop No. 1051022 in Ramapuram Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District and pass….” 2. The petitioner herein is appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1051022, Ramapuram village, Puthalapattu mandal, Chittoor district in the year 2010 and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders ever since, without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 18.07.2025, the Deputy Tahsildar along with Village Revenue Officer of Ramapuram inspected the petitioner‟s fair price shop and found shortage of 437 kilograms of PDS rice while comparing physical stock with the record balance. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 15.09.2025 to the petitioner seeking his explanation within a period of seven (7) days as to why action should not be initiated against him. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.09.2025, without considering which, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 by cancelling the 4 VS,J W.P.No.28950 of 2025 petitioner‟s authorization of the fair price shop. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, solely relying upon the report submitted under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and without there being a separate report for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, has cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. During the course of hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a letter addressed by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent vide Roc.B/113/2025, dated 22.07.2025 through which the 3rd respondent informed the 2nd respondent that a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was booked against the petitioner. He has also furnished a copy of the report under Section 6-A(1) of Essential Commodities Act. 6. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2025, it appears that the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is the proceedings of the Collector (CS) vide Roc.E2/98/2025, dated 23.07.2025 wherein, the Collector has directed the 2nd respondent in initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. Admittedly, as per Clause 20(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, pursuant to conducting inspection of a fair price shop, the inspecting officials shall recommend the Tahsildar, to take suitable action against the dealer 5 VS,J W.P.No.28950 of 2025 basing on which, the Tahsildar shall submit two separate reports i.e. one for initiating action under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and the other for initiating disciplinary proceedings against such dealer. In the case on hand, admittedly, a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was booked against the petitioner. But, a separate report, that has to be submitted by the 3rd respondent for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, was not submitted. When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, initiating disciplinary proceedings based on report under Section 6-A of E.C Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. 7. Even otherwise, it can also be seen from the impugned proceedings that the 2nd respondent, upon receipt of explanation submitted by the petitioner, has not conducted any independent enquiry but has straightaway cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization of the fair price shop No.1051022, Ramapuram village, Puthalapattu mandal, Chittoor district, which is contrary to the law settled by this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein it was observed as under: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.28950 of 2025 proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop 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 my view must be as described infra. 10. An „enquiry‟ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. The licensing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry. 11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The show cause notice dated 15.09.2025 and the proceeding No.D.Dis(G)/1573/2025, dated 29.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby set-aside. Further, the respondents are directed to continue supplying 7 VS,J W.P.No.28950 of 2025 essential commodities to the petitioner‟s fair price shop No.1051022, Ramapuram village, Puthalapattu mandal, Chittoor district, unless he is found at fault in any other instance. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 31.10.2025 Gss