APHC010103452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 5618/2025 Between: 1. MEGHAVANTH BADDUNAIK, S/O BALU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER, SHOP. NO. 0720020, R/O PITCHAIAHBAVI THANDA, VELDURTHI MANDAL, GUNTUR NOW PALANADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GURAZALA MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VELDURTHI MANDAL, PALANADU 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc. No. 1345/2024-G dated 25.01.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14. 19 and 21. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as 2 VS,J W.P.No.5618 of 2025 Fair price dealer for shop No. 0720020 situated at Pitchaiahbavi thanda, Veldurthi Mandal, Guntur Now Palanadu District and pass such 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 may be pleased suspend the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc. No. 1345/2024-G dated 25.01.2025 by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price dealer for shop No. 0720020 situated at Pitchaiahbavi thanda, Veldurthi Mandal, Guntur Now Palanadu District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such 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.5618 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 respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc. No.1345/2024-G dated 25.01.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No.0720027 situated at Pitchaiahbavi thanda, Veldurthi Mandal, Guntur District Now Palanadu District…..” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0720020 situated at Pitchaiahbavi thanda, Veldurthi Mandal, Guntur District in the year 2015. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any adverse remarks. b) The case of the petitioner is that due to a change in the political scenario in the year 2019, the then Tahsildar and concerned revenue authorities, without any justification, forcibly placed him on leave for the period from 05.07.2019 to 15.09.2019. According to the petitioner, the said leave was neither voluntary nor sought by him, but was imposed under coercion by the authorities. 4 VS,J W.P.No.5618 of 2025 c) The petitioner submitted a representations dated 16.09.2024 and again on 18.10.2024 to the office of the 3rd respondent, stating that he was physically fit and capable of performing his duties during the said period of three months and requested the authorities to rectify the injustice caused to him by treating the said leave as not voluntary and reinstate him as a Fair Price Shop dealer. However, without considering the said representations submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings Rc.No.1345/2024-G dated 25.01.2025. d) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, without considering the representations submitted by the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, passed the impugned cancellation order merely stating that the petitioner failed to give a proper explanation. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter, duly reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner; however, it is stated that the petitioner has been absent from his duties as a Fair Price Shop dealer for more than five years since 05.07.2019, thereby, causing inconvenience to the cardholders in distribution of essential commodities. Hence, alternative arrangements were made in the place of petitioner. It is further submitted in the counter that as per report of the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, the petitioner did not submit his representation on 16.09.2019. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.32 CA, F & CS (CS.I) Department, dated: 03.12.2018, revised guidelines, Clause 5 VS,J W.P.No.5618 of 2025 XII, Sub-clause X, in case of medical grounds, the appellate authority may grant leave for a period of two months, duly making alternative arrangements; seeking leave beyond two months shall be treated as resignation for the dealership and the appointing authority shall issue notification for selection and appointment and make alternative arrangements. 4. It is further stated in the counter that, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 15.10.2024 directing the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent. In pursuance of which, the petitioner attended the enquiry and submitted his explanation, which was found to be unsatisfactory and failed to justify his prolonged absence. As such, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled vide impugned order dated 25.01.2025 and alternative arrangements were made thereafter. It is further stated that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to challenge the impugned proceedings under Section 24(b) of APSTPDC, Order, 2018, by filing an appeal before the Joint Collector as against the orders of the R.D.O dated 25.01.2025. The petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy, has straightaway approached this Court by way of this writ petition. Hence, requested this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. On perusal of the material papers filed by the petitioner as well as the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that, in pursuance of the memo dated 15.10.2024, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 18.10.2024, duly 6 VS,J W.P.No.5618 of 2025 stating reasons for his absence from duties for more than five years, which was not considered by the 2nd respondent. It is stated in the counter that, as per the G.O.Ms.No.32 CA, F & CS (CS.I) Department, dated: 03.12.2018, revised guidelines, Clause XII, Sub-clause X, the appointing authority may grant leave for two (2) months duly making alternative arrangements and seeking leave beyond that two months period will be treated as resignation for the dealership and the appointing authority can issue notification for selection and appointment for making alternative arrangements. Though it is treated as resignation, the authorities have to follow the procedure prescribed with regard to resignation of the fair price shop dealer. 7. In that regard, this Court, in Chinnareddigari Sambasiva Reddy, S/o Ramaswamy vs. State of A.P. and others decided by the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (At Hyderabad) 1, categorically held as follows: “ 10. The Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 does not contain any specific provision for acceptance of resignations of the fair price shop dealers. 11. However, the Form of Authorization (form-II) contains Clause-17 which reads as under: The holder of this authorization shall work for a minimum period of five years unless suspended or cancelled by competent authority. Resignations etc., 1 2014 LawSuit(Hyd) 740 7 VS,J W.P.No.5618 of 2025 seeking to leave the dealership shall not be accepted within this minimum period of five years. 16. Ordinarily, no fair price shop dealer would like to quit his assignment. If such extra-ordinary desire is expressed by any dealer, it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to put the dealer on notice before accepting the resignation as, foul play by vested interests cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I cannot appreciate the action of respondent No.3 I purporting to ratify the hasty and unauthorized action of respondent No.4 without even trying to get the confirmation from the petitioner as to whether he has sent his resignation out of his free will or the same is secured by any vested interests by force. the failure of respondent No.3 to make an enquiry in this regard by issuing notice to the petitioner vitiates the entire action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in easing out the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership.” 8. Thus, as per the law laid down in the above decision, the respondents shall conduct an enquiry, duly issuing notice to the petitioner as to the reasons for his absence and shall pass appropriate orders. However, the impugned cancellation order does not assign proper reasons, and also does not establish the fact that a proper enquiry was conducted after issuing notice to the petitioner as contemplated under the Control Order. In the absence of such due procedure being followed by the respondents, the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1345/2024-G dated 25.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh 8 VS,J W.P.No.5618 of 2025 consideration, after duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passing a reasoned order, giving cogent reasons as to how the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) months 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: 23.12.2025 KGR