APHC010150612020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 9211/2020 Between: 1. K PADMAJA, W/O S.HAZARATHAIAH, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC. FP SHOP DEALER (UNDER CANCELLATION) OF F.P.SHOP NO.1109003, CHINTHALAPALLI VILLAGE, KALASAPADU MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KALASAPADU MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. ASST SUPPLY OFFICER, RAJAMPET, Y.S.R.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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner FP Shop No 1109003 of Chinthalapalli Village, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in Case No. 1(4)/1161/2019, dated 25.04.2020, basing on the report U/Sec.6(A) of the EC Act, 1955 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Andhra Pradesh State 2 VS,J W.P.NO.9211 OF 2020 Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 suspend the proceedings in Case No. 1(4)/1161/2019, dated 25.04.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent, by permitting the petitioner to supply the Essential Commodities to the eligible card holders from the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.1109003 of Chinthalapalli Village, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.9211 OF 2020 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “....…to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner FP Shop No1109003 of Chinthalapalli Village, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in Case No. 1(4)/1161/2019, dated 25.04.2020, basing on the report U/Sec.6(A) of the EC Act, 1955 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass....” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1109003 Chinthapalli Village, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in the year 2016. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, the Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Rajampet along with Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Badvel inspected the fair price shop on 05.10.2019, after verifying the stock available in the petitioner’s shop found some irregularities and seized the entire stock of Rice, Sugar, RG Dal, Atta, Raagi etc., Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization on 16.10.2019 without even issuing any prior notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, only basing on the report submitted by the 5th respondent on 05.10.2019, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.16869 of 2019, which was allowed by this Court by setting aside the 4 VS,J W.P.NO.9211 OF 2020 suspension order dated 16.10.2019 directing the 2nd respondent to continue the petitioner’s authorization, till appropriate reasoned order, strictly adhering the guidelines laid down by this Court in G.Durga Srinivasa Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 . Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2020 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization even without following the guidelines as under:- (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorization under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power, (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation, [iv] The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorization and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; 1 2015 (6) ALD 359 5 VS,J W.P.NO.9211 OF 2020 (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the matter is at admission stage, this Court was pleased to pass interim orders:- “In the meantime, the proceedings in Case No.1(4)/169/2019, dated 25.04.2020, shall stand suspended.” 5. Thereafter, on 21.10.2020, the said interim order passed earlier shall remain in operation until further orders. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner’s authorization has been placed under suspension even without issuing any 6 VS,J W.P.NO.9211 OF 2020 notice and affording any opportunity of hearing, but, only basing on the report submitted by the 5th respondent filed under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in spite of there being an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16869 of 2019 dated 30.10.2019, suspending the earlier suspension orders and directing the respondents to continue the petitioner’s authorization strictly adhering to the guidelines laid down by this Court in G.Durga Srinivasa Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh(supra). 8. The respondents have failed to file any counter in the present case, though the writ petition is pertaining to the year 2020. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a copy of instructions from the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.1(4)/1161/2019, dated 12.09.2025, wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the order passed by this court on 29.05.2020 the then Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa district vide ref.No.I(4)/1161/2019, dated 09.06.2020 directed the Tahsildar to send the proposals of the petitioner’s shop for mapping of dealer/nominee particulars in e-pos website and accordingly the petitioner authorization was restored pending disposal of the writ petition. 9. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the common order, dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies 7 VS,J W.P.NO.9211 OF 2020 appearing for the respondents. The relevant portion of the said order, reads as under: 9. …When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. 10. As per Clause ‘q’ of Circular Memo issued by Commissioner, Civil Supplies in No.21/100/2015-AD.1 PP&CCS dated 28.09.2015, proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are liable for confiscation or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorization to be issued, based on report. In view of memo and requirement under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order passed by second respondent cannot be sustained, consequently the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20 (i) of Control Order, 2018. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside proceedings in SR.No.130/2019-S5, dated 23-12-2019, passed by second respondent, suspending the authorization of petitioner, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also allowed, in terms of the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 25.04.2020 are set-aside. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner. 8 VS,J W.P.NO.9211 OF 2020 Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 to this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 16.09.2025 LSP 9 VS,J W.P.NO.9211 OF 2020 191 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 9211/2020 Dated: 16.09.2025 LSP