APHC010616662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31805/2025 Between: 1. P.CHANDRA KALAVATHI, W/O P.VENUGOPAL REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER FOR F.P.SHOP NO. 1229014, ACHUTAPURAM VILLAGE, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU 3. THE TAHSILDAR, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT 4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, , ANANTHAPURAMU ...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 or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 in Rc. No. DlCS/1968/2025 on the file of the 2nd 2 Respondent, as illegal. arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice 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 issue interim directions to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1229014 of Achutapuram Village, Yellanur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, by regularly supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner, without reference to the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 in Rc. No. DIGS/1968/2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of W.P.No. of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 in Rc. No. DlCS/1968/2025 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, as illegal. arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and pass….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is a permanent fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1129014 of Achutapuram Village, Yellanur Mandal, Anantapuramu District, vide authorization in proceedings No.D.Dis.No.K/6/2499/2019 dated 03.09.2019. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been running the fair price shop without any complaints from any quarter. It is also the case of the petitioner that the authorization has been extended from time to time. b) While things stood thus, due to political pressures in view of the change of Government, the authorities are seeking to terminate the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner on one ground or another, without following due process of law. On 04.09.2025, the 3rd respondent, along with the VRO, inspected the petitioner’s shop and seized the physical stocks without weighment, stating that the petitioner was not present. The petitioner, after the distribution of the said commodities to card holders on 04.09.2025, attended 4 to his daughter in the hospital who was admitted there. The alleged panchanama, prepared on 06.09.2025, consists of two dates, i.e., 04.09.2025 and 06.09.2025, and the panchanama was conducted in the absence of the petitioner. Thereafter, only under political pressures, the 3rd respondent stopped the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop without any suspension or issuing a show-cause notice. The petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.26955 of 2025, which was disposed of on 26.09.2025, directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop and to allow her to distribute the essential commodities to card holders, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oleti Tirupathamma v. District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam, and others. After disposal of the said Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice on 29.09.2025, calling for an explanation from the petitioner, framing four charges. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 15.10.2025. 3. The grievance in the present writ petition is that the 2nd respondent, even without conducting any enquiry and solely based on the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 15.10.2025, straightaway cancelled the petitioner’s authorization and further directed the 3rd respondent to make alternative arrangements, challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 5. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that, except referring to the report of the Tahsildar dated 06.09.2025, the show-cause notice dated 29.09.2025, and the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 15.10.2025, there is no mention as to whether the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension before cancellation, and whether any enquiry was conducted as required under the Control Order 2018. Admittedly, except referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, no reason is given by the 2nd respondent as to why the explanation was not convincing and the petitioner’s authorization is liable to be terminated. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has confirmed that no alternative arrangements have been made to date, except directing the VRA distribute the essential commodities to the respective card holders to avoid inconvenience caused to them. 7. As can be seen from the record, the impugned order dated 16.10.2025, was passed based on the report of the Tahsildar, Yellanur dated 06.09.2025. In M.Kalyani v. District Collector and Ors., the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the case whether the report which formed the basis of the charge was not supplied to the appellant therein, held as under: In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No. 3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. It is not in dispute that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to the appellant. 6 In K. Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and Ors. 1996 (1) ALD 473 : 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP) , it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case effectively. It was further held that the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfil the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show-cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. In that case the petitioner therein had been given opportunity of personal hearing but even then the Court held that the opportunity was not real inasmuch as the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer. In S. Malla Reddy Vs. M. Vijayalakshmi and Others, , this Court held that the authorization of fair price shop could not have been cancelled on the basis of vague notice.” 8. Considering the ratio laid down in the above judgment and the submissions made by both counsels, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings dated 16.10.2025 were passed without any detailed enquiry as required under the Control Order. Hence, the impugned proceedings dated 16.10.2025 are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 16.10.2025 in Rc.No.DICS/1968/2025 passed by the 2nd respondent, and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings as required under the Control Order. However, till such time, the respondents are directed to supply 7 essential commodities to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 17.11.2025 MH/JAK 8 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 148 WRIT PETITION NO: 31805/2025 Dated: 17.11.2025 MH/JAK