APHC010288572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14467/2024 Between: 1. MEESALA PRASAD, S/O.SURYANARAYANA, AGED 38 YEARS, DEALER OF F.P.SHOP.NO. 0221038, R/O.DAMARASINGI VILLAGE, GURLA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHEEPURUPALLI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES), GURLA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, GURLA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. THE DAMARASINGI GRAM PANCHAYAT, DAMARASINGI VILLAGE, GURLA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.14467 of 2024 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, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No.0221038 of Damarasingi Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District vide Proceedings in Rc.No.243/2024/CS dated 01-05-2024 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently to respondents herein to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in respect of Fair Price Shop vide F.P.Shop.No.0221038 of Damarasingi Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in respect of Fair Price Shop vide F.P.Shop.No.0221038 of Damarasingi Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District by suspending the proceedings in Rc.No.243/2024/CS dated 01-05-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 Interim Order dated 15.07.2024 in I. A. No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.14467 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.14467 of 2024 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, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No.0221038 of Damarasingi Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District vide Proceedings in Rc.No.243/2024/CS dated 01-05-2024 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently to respondents herein to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in respect of Fair Price Shop vide F.P.Shop.No.0221038 of Damarasingi Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0221038 situated at Damarasingi Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District in the year 2004. The petitioner‟s authorization has been extended from time to time and is subsisting till 30.03.2025. b) While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent, without issuing any notice have issued proceedings Rc.No.243/2024/CS, dated 01.05.2024 suspending the petitioner‟s authorization alleging that a complaint was registered against the petitioner in CVIGIL vide ID No.1151021, dated 01.05.2024 stating that petitioner has participated in YSRCP political party 4 VS,J W.P.No.14467 of 2024 meeting(Election Campaign) on 01.05.2024 at Damarasingi village, Gurla Mandal, Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 15.07.2024, this Court passed an interim order suspending the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.243/2024/CS, dated 01.05.2024. Thereafter, the interim order was extended from time to time. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in support of the impugned proceedings stating that the petitioner has participated in YSRCP political party meeting (Election Campaign) on 01.05.2024 at Damarasingi Village, Gurla Mandal, thereby contravening the provisions and conditions of Clause 12(S) of the A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Pursuant to the complaint received on 01.05.2024, a report was called for from the Tahsildar, Gurla and the Tahsildar submitted a confirmation report on 02.05.2024 stating that the petitioner participated in the election campaign on 01.05.2024 without taking prior permission. It is further stated that on receipt of the said complaint on 01.05.2024, the same was forwarded to the concerned Flying Squad Team and the in-charge of FST (Flying Squard Team) (shift 2) reached the village and conducted an enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the team leader has enquired the petitioner and recorded his statement in which he deposed that he has been working as a Fair Price Shop dealer since 13 years and admitted that he participated in the YSRCP 5 VS,J W.P.No.14467 of 2024 party campaign. After receiving the said explanation, disciplinary action was initiated and the petitioner was suspended. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 01.05.2024, it can be observed that in pursuance of the receipt of the complaint on 01.05.2024, admittedly, except calling for a report from the Tahsildar, no show-cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner nor any explanation was called from him and on the other hand, the 3rd respondent has straight away passed the impugned suspension order dated 01.05.2024, which is in violation of “Audi alteram Partem” as it is the basic concept of the principles of natural justice. 7. „Audi alteram partem‟ means „hear the other side‟, or „no man should be condemned unheard‟ or „both the sides must be heard before passing any order‟. Generally, this maxim includes two elements: (i) Notice; and (ii) Hearing. 8. Before taking any action, the affected party must be given a notice to show cause as to why the action shall not be taken against him. It is a sine qua non of the right of fair hearing. Any order passed without giving notice is against the principles of natural justice and is void ab initio. The right to notice means the right of being known. A notice must contain the time, place and 6 VS,J W.P.No.14467 of 2024 date of hearing, and proposed action against the person. All these things should be included in a notice to make it proper and adequate. Non-issue of the notice or any defective service of the notice do not affect the jurisdiction of the authority but violates the principles of natural justice. 9. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, firstly; a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard, secondly; the concerned authority should follow fair and transparent procedure and lastly; the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matters by reasoned order or speaking order. this has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad [vide: “Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/s. Shukla1”] . 10. By applying the principle laid down in the above Judgment as no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order as the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Rc.243/2024/CS, dated 01.05.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The 1 (2010) 4 SCC 785 7 VS,J W.P.No.14467 of 2024 said enquiry shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks 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: 24.12.2025 KGR