APHC010020592022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1570/2022 Between: 1. SMT.T.R.NANDINI, W/O LATE M.PRVEEN KUMAR AGE 30 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1056005, VARIGAPALLI VILLAGE YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DIST., AT CHITTOOR. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 4th respondent vide Roc.B1/2663/2021 dt17-1- 2022 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner for the FP Shop No.1056005, Varigapalli Village Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor Dist., without following the 2 VS,J W.P.No.1570 of 2022 procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order dt17-1-2022 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 operation of the order issued by the 4th respondent vide Roc.B1/2663/2021 dt:17-1-2022 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner for the FP Shop No.1056005, Varigapalli Village Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor Dist., by continuing the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 orders passed in WP. 1570/2022 dated 24-01-2022 and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.1570 of 2022 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 4th respondent vide Roc.B1/2663/2021 dt 17- 1- 2022 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner for the FP Shop No.1056005, Varigapalli Village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order dt 17-1-2022 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual..…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) Originally, petitioner’s husband was the permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1056005, Varigalli Village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. After his expiry on 01.08.2016, due to ill-health, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on 05.08.2017 as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of the said shop. The petitioner’s authorization is valid up to 31.03.2023. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from anybody whatsoever. b) While the matter stood thus, the Corporator of 21st Division, Municipal Corporation, Chittoor made a complaint to the 4th respondent on 12.10.2021 stating that the petitioner is working as a Government employee and is not distributing essential commodities to the cardholders in time. Basing on the said complaint, the 4th respondent issued show-cause notice dated 4 VS,J W.P.No.1570 of 2022 09.12.2021, for which, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 28.12.2021 stating that she is not doing any Government job and that she has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders regularly. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 17.01.2022 has been passed cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent passed the impugned orders dated 17.01.2022, cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization without even considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner or assigning proper reasons. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 24.01.2022, this Court passed the interim order suspending the operation of the impugned order vide Roc.B1/2663/2021 dated 17.01.2022 by continuing the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization has been cancelled without framing proper charges and without conducting enquiry as required under the provisions of clause 8(4) of the APSTPDS(Control) Order, 2018, which is illegal and arbitrary. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is being continued to run the Fair Price Shop. 5 VS,J W.P.No.1570 of 2022 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court prima facie found that the respondents have not issued any charge memo framing charges that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the APSTPDS(Control) Order, 2018 and the charges are not proved in the enquiry by giving fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case as held by this Court in B.Manjula v. 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 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. 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.1570 of 2022 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. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the 4th respondent is without considering the explanation of the petitioner and no reasons were assigned and no enquiry was conducted in relation to the objections and contentions raised in the explanation, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others2, it was observed as under: “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 7 VS,J W.P.No.1570 of 2022 9. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 10. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.01.2022 of the 4th respondent is set-aside. It is need less to state that the respondents shall restore the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop till finalization of proceedings, if an enquiry is conducted afresh. 8 VS,J W.P.No.1570 of 2022 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 03.11.2025 KGR