APHC010067502022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4316/2022 Between: 1. D. THIKKA SWAMY,, S/O D. ERANNA, HINDU, 24 YEARS, SHOP NO.1302014, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, NELAKOSIGI VILLAGE, KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL 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, a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Rc.M.4543/2019 dated 22.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No.1302014, Nelakosigi Village, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without conducting the panchanama or enquiry and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed 2 VS,J W.P.No.4316 of 2022 to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same 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 may please to stay the proceedings Rc.M.4543/2019 dated 22.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 duly permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No.1302014, Nelakosigi Village, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass 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 pleased to vacate the Interim order dated 09.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.4316 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA 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.4316 of 2022 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, declaring the proceedings in Rc.M.4543/2019 dated 22.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No.1302014, Nelakosigi Village, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without conducting the panchanama or enquiry and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass….” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1302014 situated in Nelakosigi village, Kosigi mandal, Kurnool district in the year 2018 and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 03.10.2019 alleging that he violated certain conditions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. On the same day, vide proceedings dated 03.10.2019, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner‟s authorization basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent in Rc.B/348/2019, dated 16.08.2019. Challenging the suspension proceedings dated 03.10.2019, the petitioner filed 4 VS,J W.P.No.4316 of 2022 W.P.No.16068 of 2019 which was disposed of by this Court on 17.10.2019 and the operative portion of the said order reads as under: “…Hence, the Order of suspension dt.Nil.10.2019, is hereby set aside. The Petitioner is directed to submit his explanation within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order on the show cause notice issued by the respondent authorities and after receipt of the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, the respondents shall complete the enquiry within four weeks. Until such time, the respondent authorities shall supply the essential commodities to the Fair Price Shop of the Petitioner.” 4. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a fresh show cause notice dated 28.12.2021 to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.01.2022. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry has cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization vide proceedings in Rc.M.4543/2019, dated 22.01.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 09.03.2022, this Court has passed an interim order by directing the respondent authorities to supply essential commodities to the petitioner until further orders. 6. The respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter affidavit reiterating the facts that led to filing of the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.No.16068 of 2019 and further stated that impugned proceedings dated 22.01.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent are passed after conducting a fair enquiry and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5 VS,J W.P.No.4316 of 2022 7. Heard Sri. Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the entire material available on record. 8. It can be seen that the Tahsildar, Kosigi mandal along with Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, Nelakosigi village inspected the petitioner‟s fair price shop on 20.07.2019 during which, certain discrepancies of ground stock were found when compared to the stock register. As such, the Tahsildar, Kosigi mandal submitted a report dated 16.09.2019 to the 3rd respondent by mentioning the irregularities committed by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 03.10.2019, the Collector (CS), Kurnool suspended the petitioner‟s authorization of the fair price shop which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.16068 of 2019, wherein, this Court directed the petitioner to submit explanation within one week and the respondents were directed to complete enquiry within a period of four weeks. In compliance to the same, the respondent authorities have restored the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.CS3/348/2019, dated 02.12.2019. Thereafter, a fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.12.2021 framing nine charges against him and directed the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent on 07.01.2022 for enquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent on 07.01.2022 and 11.01.2022 with his counsel and submitted his explanation denying the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent vide 6 VS,J W.P.No.4316 of 2022 proceedings dated 22.01.2022 has cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization of the fair price shop No.1302014 of Nelakosigi village, Kosigi mandal by observing that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing. A perusal of the said proceeding dated 22.01.2022 would go to show that nowhere it is mentioned as to whether the cardholders, upon whose complaint inspection was conducted in the petitioner‟s fair price shop, were examined. The said action of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice. In B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1 this Court, while dealing with the importance of conducting enquiry, 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 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 7 VS,J W.P.No.4316 of 2022 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. The impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the respondent No.3 is without considering the explanation of the petitioner and no reasons were assigned to his dissatisfaction over the same. Further, no enquiry was conducted in relation to the objections and contentions raised by the petitioner in the explanation. 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 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 8 VS,J W.P.No.4316 of 2022 disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 10. 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. 11. 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 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 12. In view of the above and in view of the fact that the essential commodities are being supplied to the petitioner‟s fair price shop pursuant to 9 VS,J W.P.No.4316 of 2022 the interim order dated 09.03.2022, the impugned proceedings dated 22.01.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent cancelling the petitioner‟s authorization of the fair price shop are hereby set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to record reasons thereof. It is need less to state that the respondents shall restore the authorization of the petitioner‟s fair price shop bearing No.1302014 situated in Nelakosigi village, Kosigi mandal, Kurnool district till finalization of proceedings, if an enquiry is conducted afresh. 13. In the result, 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 04.11.2025 Gss