APHC010707792018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34361/2018 Between: 1. B.RAMESH KUMAR, S/O B.THIPPANNA, AGED. 50 YEARS, OCC. PERMANENT F.P.SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.19, R/O BASAMPALLI (V), HINDUPUR (M), ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA REVENUE DIVISION, PENUKONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. TAHSILDHAR, HINDUPUR MANDAL, HINDUPUR ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus decla Rc.no.K6/135//2016 dt.06 passed by the 3rd Respondent there by confirming cancellation proceedings IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34361/2018 B.RAMESH KUMAR, S/O B.THIPPANNA, AGED. 50 YEARS, OCC. PERMANENT F.P.SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.19, R/O BASAMPALLI (V), HINDUPUR (M), ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA REVENUE KONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. TAHSILDHAR, HINDUPUR MANDAL, HINDUPUR ANANTAPUR ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of Respondent no.2 in Rc.no.K6/135//2016 dt.06-08-2018 confirming the Orders dt.23 passed by the 3rd Respondent there by confirming cancellation proceedings IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA B.RAMESH KUMAR, S/O B.THIPPANNA, AGED. 50 YEARS, OCC. PERMANENT F.P.SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.19, R/O BASAMPALLI ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA REVENUE TAHSILDHAR, HINDUPUR MANDAL, HINDUPUR ANANTAPUR ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of ring the proceedings of Respondent no.2 in 2018 confirming the Orders dt.23-09-2015 passed by the 3rd Respondent there by confirming cancellation proceedings 2 VS,J W.P.No.34361 of 2018 D.Dis.no.445/2015/C dt.08-04-2015 passed by 4th Respondent with respect to petitioners fair price Shop No.19, Basampalli (v), Hindupur (m) of Anantapur as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No.19, Basampalli (v), Hindupur (m) of Anantapur and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to not to appoint any permanent fair price shop dealer with respect to Shop No.19, Basampalli (v), Hindupur (n) of Anantapur and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 to continue the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.19, Basampalli (v), Hindupur (m) of Anantapur by suspending operation of cancellation proceedings dt.08-04-2015 passed by 4th Respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) 3 VS,J W.P.No.34361 of 2018 The Court made the following 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 more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of Respondent no.2 in Rc.no.K6/135//2016 dt:06.08.2018 confirming the Orders dt:23.09.2015 passed by the 3rd Respondent there by confirming cancellation proceedings D.Dis.no.445/2015/C dt:08.04.2015 passed by 4th Respondent with respect to petitioners fair price Shop No.19,Basampalli(v), Hindupur(m) of Anantapur as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No.19, Basampalli(v), Hindupur(m) of Anantapur and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer for Shop bearing No.19 of Basampalli Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaints from the card holders. His authorization has been extended from time to time. His case is that due to political influence, there has been a spate of suspensions of fair price shop dealerships in Anantapur District. While the matter stood thus, basing on the report dated 09.03.2015 alleged to have been submitted by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, Hindupur, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 18.03.2015 framing certain charges in respect of variation of physical stock of PDS rice and sugar as against the stock register, and calling for his explanation by 27.03.2015. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.03.2015 to the said show cause notice contending that the 4 VS,J W.P.No.34361 of 2018 variations found are marginal and excusable. He contended that in respect of first charge is concerned, there has been a shortage in the stocks of rice and sugar with reference to sale, stock register and stock on ground balance; in respect of second charge is concerned, he entrusted the shop to one B.Madhusudhan Kumar on that specific day, as he was un-well. With respect to third charge is concerned, he contended that the original authorization was kept with the officials, as he had applied for renewal of his permanent authorization on 18.06.2014. However, without considering the said explanation, the 4th respondent issued proceedings in D.Dis.No.445/2015/C, dated 08.04.2015 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Ananthapur, by raising various grounds that the charges framed against him are not related to distribution of commodities and the same were framed falsely due to political influence just to suspend his authorization. The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, dismissed the appeal vide his proceedings in Rc.No.K6/657/2015 dated 23.09.2015 confirming the orders of the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer dated 08.04.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Ananthapuramu and the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Ananthapuramu vide proceedings in Rc.No.K6/135/2016 dated 06.08.2018, dismissed the revision confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 23.09.2015. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 5 VS,J W.P.No.34361 of 2018 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. The 2nd respondent-the District Collector filed his counter, while reiterating the contents of the petitioner, contended that the variation in stocks 3.55% of rice and 2.54% of sugar are more than the permissible limits and that the authorities considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner before issuing the cancellation proceedings. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, as on today, the fair price shop is not allotted to any other persons. 6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record a copy of the instructions dated 21.08.2025 given by the Tahsildar, Hindupuram, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the termination of fair price shop dealership and cancellation of authorization of the petitioner, the 4th respondent appointed one Smt. K.Rathnamma w/o. K.Basappa, Secretary of Sri Gangothri Mahila Sangham (SHG) vide proceedings Rc.No.514/2024/CC dated 23.07.2024 to run the said fair price shop on temporary basis. 7. On perusal of the material on record, it appears that the 5th respondent- Tahsildar, Hindupuramu, inspected the subject shop and during his physical verification of stock, he found shortage of 3.43 Qtls of Rice and 0.07 Kgs of 6 VS,J W.P.No.34361 of 2018 Sugar with reference to sale, stock register and the stock on ground balance and opined that the petitioner has indulged in illicit sale of PDS for his pecuniary gain and contravened the clauses of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008 and accordingly, basing on the report of the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, issued show cause notice to the petitioner, framing three charges. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his explanation to the said charges. However, the 4th respondent, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted to the petitioner, issued the proceedings dated 08.04.2015 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. It appears that challenging the said cancellation proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Ananthapuram. But, the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, while rejecting the claims of the petitioner with regard to the charges, dismissed the appeal holding that the ground of appeal did not support by any evidence and also not convincing. Even in the revision also, the 2nd respondent categorically held that as per clause 24 of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008, the marginal variation up to 1.5% in single commodity can be allowed, whereas the shortage of 3.43 Quintal of rice and 0.07 Kgs of sugar found in the ground balance available for the month of February, 2015, is more than 1.5% of the total 32.35 Quintal of rice and 0.88 Quintal of sugar respectively as against the sale transactions done by the petitioner, which resulted in contravention of Clause 17 C of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2008 by diverting the rice and sugar meant for PDS to the black market. 7 VS,J W.P.No.34361 of 2018 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court found that the conclusions arrived at by the respondent authorities are justified and well founded in the absence of substantive material on the part of the petitioner to prove his bonafides in respect of the charges levelled against him. This court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities as found by the respondent authorities and thus, the said conclusions do not call for any interference. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Ananthapuramu vide proceedings in Rc.No.K6/135/2016, dated 06.08.2018. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 15.09.2025 MDP