APHC010637242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 33031/2025 Between: 1. KONDALA JAYALAKSHMI, W/O BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SHG DEALER, FP SHOP NO.0124872, R/O CHINNAGUJJUVADA VILLAGE, SARAVAKOTA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETIT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CSI DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCIVIL SUPPLIES WING, , SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 3. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. 4. TAHSILDAR, SARAVAKOTA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 5. SMT KOREDI ISSAI SWAPNA, W/O CHANTIBABU, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SRI VENKATESWARA SHG, CHINNAGUJJUVADA VILLAGE, SARAVAKOTA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532 426. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.02.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025 ...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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more 2 VS,J W.P.No.33031 of 2025 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the Respondent in Rc.No.621/2022/F/Dt.05.11.2025, whereby terminating the Petitioner as SHG Dealer of F.P. Shop No.0124872, SHG, Chinnagujjuvada Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District without following due process of law and conducting independent enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, irregular and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.621/2022/F/Dt.05.11.2025 of the 3rd Respondent and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Dealer of F.P. Shop No.0124893, SHG, Chinnagujjuvada Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District by suspending proceedings passed by the 3rdRespondent in Rc.No.621/2022/F/Dt.05.11.2025 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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court in the interests of Justice be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to continue the Petitioner as temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer for F.P. Shop No.0124872 of Chinnagujjivada, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District by suspending the proceedings passed by the 3rdc Respondent in Rc.No. 621/2022/F/Dt.05.11,2025 and pass s 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 pleased to implead the proposed Respondent 5 as Respondent No.5 in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.33031 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent in Rc.No.621/2022/F/Dt.05.11.2025, whereby terminating the Petitioner as SHG Dealer of F.P. Shop No.0124872, SHG, Chinnagujjuvada Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District without following due process of law and conducting independent enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, irregular and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.621/2022/F/Dt.05.11.2025 of the 3rd Respondent and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Dealer of F.P. Shop No.0124893, SHG, Chinnagujjuvada Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District by suspending proceedings passed by the 3rd Respondent in Rc.No.621/2022/F/Dt.05.11.2025 ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0124872 situated at Chinnagujjuvada Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District on 19.05.2022, being a member of „Sri Devi SwayamSakthi Sangam SHG, Chinnagujjivada Village‟. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. 4 VS,J W.P.No.33031 of 2025 b) While the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice in Rc.No.1304/2025/F, dated 25.10.2025, alleging that the petitioner committed irregularities by resorting for diversion of EC and PDS stock and thereby carrying on clandestine business, as well as not maintaining the records properly and thus contravened the provisions of Clauses 12(n), 12(P)(3), 12(s) and 29 of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, for which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 01.11.2025, stating that no cardholder had filed any complaint against her with regard to any discrepancies, loss or gain of commodities during her tenure as an SHG dealer, and specifically pleaded that she was receiving lesser quantity of stock from MLS point itself. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the same, the 3rd respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 05.11.2025, terminated the petitioner‟s authorization for violation of the aforesaid Clauses, without conducting any enquiry, merely considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and stating that the petitioner has not furnished any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim regarding the shortage, nor any proof of receiving lesser quantity of stock from the MLS point. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. During the course of arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has stated that the 3rd respondent has already appointed one Smt. Koredi @ Issai Swapna, W/o Chantibabu as a temporary dealer. In 5 VS,J W.P.No.33031 of 2025 view of the same, this Court has directed the petitioner to implead the temporary dealer, and accordingly, she was impleaded as the 5th respondent in the present writ petition. Though notice was served on the 5th respondent, there is no appearance on her behalf. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 05.11.2025, it can be observed that the Tahsildar, Sarvakota vide report dated 22.10.2025, reported that on 18.10.2025, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) and the Village Revenue Officer, Chinnagujjuvada inspected the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop and have identified certain variations of (-) 210 kgs of Sortex rice and (-) 5 packets (½ kg) of sugar, for which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 01.11.2025, denying the charges and stating that the shortage occurred due to receipt of lesser quantity from the MLS point itself. However, the 3rd respondent, without conducting any independent enquiry and solely relying on the Tahsildar‟ report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner, held that the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim and concluded that the charges were proved, as the variations were beyond permissible limits, and accordingly terminated the petitioner‟s authorization. 6. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has failed to conduct an independent enquiry by examining the witnesses to ascertain as to whether the petitioner was receiving lesser quantity from the MLS point. Further, the 3rd respondent has also failed to assign reasons with respect to the charges framed against the petitioner. Such action is contrary to the settled law laid down by this Court 6 VS,J W.P.No.33031 of 2025 in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court held as follows: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary 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.” 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 7 VS,J W.P.No.33031 of 2025 7. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned termination order issued by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable, as it was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain her case, as required under law. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Rc.621/2022/F, dated 05.11.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 16.12.2025 KGR