APHC010597502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30899/2025 Between: 1. C REDDY KUMARI, W/O. SHIVA SHAMBUDU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION FPS DEALER, SHOP NO.1130013, BHAKARAPET VILLAGE, SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR KADAPA 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 an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings No. F/1188/2025, dated 15-10-2025 without following the procedure as illegal, 2 VS,J W.P.No.30899/2025 arbitrary, and ultra vires, being violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 to restore and continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1130013, Bhakarapet Village, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer in respect of Shop No. 1130013 of Bhakarapet Village, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, by suspending the proceedings No. F/1188/2025, dated 15-10-2025 issued by the 4TH respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGENDRA BABU PARAGATI 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.30899/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings No. F/1188/2025, dated 15-10-2025 without following the procedure as illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires, being violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 to restore and continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.1130013, Bhakarapet Village, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, and pass…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1130013 at Bhakarapet Village, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the card holders without any complaints from any quarter. (b) While things stood thus, on 07.10.2025, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, C.K.Dinne, along with the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Kadapa, inspected the shop and alleged certain variations between the online report and the ground balance. Thereafter, seized certain essential commodities under a panchanama dated 07.10.2025 and registered a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short referred to as the „Act‟). 4 VS,J W.P.No.30899/2025 (c) The grievance of the petitioner is that based on the proceedings initiated under Section 6A of the Act, respondent No.5 submitted a recommendation to respondent No.4 to suspend the petitioner‟s authorization. Pursuant to the said recommendation, respondent No.4, without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner as required under the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, straightaway suspended the petitioner‟s authorization vide impugned proceedings in Ref.No.F/1188/2025, dated 15.10.2025, challenging which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On perusal of the impugned proceedings of respondent No.4 dated 15.10.2025, it can be observed that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation with regard to the variation found in the stock during the course of inspection, which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 5. The fundamental rules of natural justice have become firmly embedded in modern jurisprudence and the same may be broadly categorized under the heads of: “(1) Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, i.e. no one shall be a judge in his own case, or “Doctrine of Bias”. (2) Audi alteram partem i.e. Right of hearing. (3) Reasoned decision/Speaking order.” 5 VS,J W.P.No.30899/2025 6. In present case, this Court is primarily concerned with the second principle, viz., audi alteram partem. “Audi alteram partem” is one of the most important aspects of the principles of natural justice which literally means “to hear the other side”. This means the necessity to provide a fair hearing i.e., affording opportunity to the person concerned to explain his position before such person is subjected to any adverse action so that he may be able to explain the facts and circumstances and convince the authorities concerned that such a contemplated or proposed adverse action is not called for. This principle of audi alteram partem requires that notice must be given to the person before any adverse action is taken and such notice cannot be vague and ambiguous to the proposed action to be taken so as to apprise the authorities determinatively the cases he has to meet. In other words, the person concerned must be informed of the charges and allegations clearly against him so that he may be able to fully meet these allegations and defend himself. 7. In the case on hand, though the petitioner is a temporary dealer, he was deprived of an opportunity of hearing. Further, the respondent authorities have not issued any show cause notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation, before taking adverse action against him. It can also be observed that, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned proceedings, solely basing upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Sidhout Mandal. 6 VS,J W.P.No.30899/2025 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned proceedings vide Ref.No.F/1188/2025, dated 15.10.2025, are hereby set-aside. However, if necessary, respondent No.4 is at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, by duly following the principles of natural justice. It is needless to state that till such time, the respondent authorities shall provide essential commodities to the petitioner‟s fair price shop bearing Shop No.1130013 at Bhakarapet Village, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 07.11.2025 KBN 7 VS,J W.P.No.30899/2025 210 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30899/2025 Date: 07.11.2025 KBN