APHC010608732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31600/2025 Between: 1. M SIVARAMANJANEYULU, S/O. M. SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, F.P. SHOP NO. 1348033 H.NO. 3-39, METTUPALLY VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) DHONE, NANDYALA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDYALA 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 topleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings 2 vide Rc.No.D/CS/591/2024 dated 25-08-2025 cancelling the authorization and suspending the writ petitioner from dealership of F.P. Shop No. 1348033, Mettupally Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District without valid reasons and opportunity of hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principle of natural and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the writ petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer No. 1348033, Mettupally Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal 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 proceedings vide Rc.No. D/CS/591/2024 dated 25- 08-2025 issued by the 3rd respondent by continuing the writ petitioner to supply the Essential Commodities for F.P. Shop No. 1348033, Mettupally Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J.JYOTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J.JYOTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.D/CS/591/2024 dated 25-08-2025 cancelling the authorization and suspending the writ petitioner from dealership of F.P. Shop No. 1348033, Mettupally Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District without valid reasons and opportunity of hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principle of natural and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the writ petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer No. 1348033, Mettupally Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District and pass.….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for Shop No.1348033, Mettupally Village, vide proceedings No.RC.B/914/2010 dated 20.04.2010. Thereafter, the authorization was renewed from time to time, and the petitioner also paid Rs.500/- on 27.02.2024 for renewal of his authorization, which is pending before the concerned authorities. 3. While things stood thus, on 09.11.2024, around 12:30 p.m., the 5th respondent, along with other revenue officials, inspected the petitioner‟s shop, where the nominee dealer, who is the petitioner‟s wife, was present. They found certain irregularities, prepared a panchanama, and thereafter seized the stock available in the petitioner‟s fair price shop along with the ePOS machine. The 4 petitioner thereafter approached the office of the 3rd respondent with an explanation but they did not receive the same. Based on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.D/CS/591/2024 dated 19.11.2024, cancelling the authorization and suspending the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership. The petitioner filed W.P.No.30315 of 2024 challenging the proceedings dated 19.11.2024. After hearing both sides, this Court disposed of the writ petition vide orders dated 08.04.2025 with a direction to the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner, leaving it open to the respondent authorities to proceed in accordance with law. 3. In pursuance of the orders dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Court, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.05.2025, and a final notice was issued on 01.08.2025 directing the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 07.08.2025. Thereafter, the proceedings cancelling the authorization of the petitioner were passed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the authorization was cancelled without conducting a proper enquiry. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 5. As can be seen from the record, the impugned proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent are without application of mind. The operative portion of the impugned order is as under: “In view of the above lapses as noted by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, it clearly indicates disobedience. In view of the above lapses and irregularities, the authorization of the F.P. Shop No.1348033, Mettupalli Village, which was issued in favour of M. Sivaramanjaneyulu, is hereby cancelled, and accordingly he is hereby suspended from the F.P. Shop dealership of F.P. Shop No.1348033, Mettupalli Village.” 6. As can be seen from the order passed by the 3rd respondent, it clearly shows that the petitioner‟s authorization was cancelled without issuing a fresh show-cause notice. The 3rd respondent ought to have called for an explanation after issuing the show-cause notice as to why the petitioner‟s fair price shop authorization should not be suspended. Thereafter, on receiving a proper explanation from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent ought to have conducted an enquiry and only then the authorization ought to have been cancelled. But in the present case, it appears that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.30315 of 2024, the 3rd respondent issued a notice calling for an explanation and thereafter straightaway cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization, without application of mind and without conducting any enquiry. 7. In B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1 observed as extracted hereunder: “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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 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.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings 7 dated 25.08.2025, and the matter has to be remanded back to the 3rd respondent for initiating appropriate action, if required. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.D/CS/591/2024 dated 25.08.2025 are set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for conducting an enquiry afresh, in accordance with law. It is needless to say that, till such proceedings are concluded against the petitioner, the respondents shall supply the essential commodities to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MH 14.11.2025 8 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 47 WRIT PETITION NO: 31600/2025 14.11.2025 MH