APHC010545502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28266/2025 Between: 1. SRI JANAPATI CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O SRI J. UMAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OF SHOP NO.1283009, R/O- D.NO. 1-4-538, SHANTI NAGAR,RAYADURG TOWN, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, ANANTHAPURAMU. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, ANANTHAPURAMU. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANDURG, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYADURG MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.28266 of 2025 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 nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in passing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.K6/06/2025 dated 11.08.2025 by confirming the cancellation order in RC.NO.B2/1277/2024 dated 27.12.2024 and the confiscation order in Rc.No.K11/388/2024 dated 12.06.2025 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the A.P. ROR Act, 1971 and the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 and Consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioners Fair Price Shop Authorization forthwith 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 to suspend the operation of the Impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent in Rc. No. K6/06/2025, dated 11.08.2025 and the proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent in Rc. No. B2/1277/2024, dated 27.12.2024, and to direct the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner Fair Shop No. 1283009 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.28266 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition came to be 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 nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in passing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.K6/06/2025 dated 11.08.2025 by confirming the cancellation order in RC.NO.B2/1277/2024 dated 27.12.2024 and the confiscation order in Rc.No.K11/388/2024 dated 12.06.2025 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the A.P. ROR Act, 1971 and the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 and Consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioners Fair Price Shop Authorization forthwith ….= 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1283009 in Rayadurg Town in the year 2018 vide proceedings of the 4th respondent in Rc.No.187/2018/B1 dated 30.05.2018. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time and is validly renewed and extended up to 31.03.206. b) While the matter stood thus, on 08.11.2024, the revenue officials led by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahisldar (CSDT), conducted a surprise inspection over the petitioner’s shop and found certain variations. Based on the said inspection, the 5th respondent submitted a report, pursuant to which the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 16.12.2024, framing a single 4 VS,J W.P.No.28266 of 2025 charge regarding excess variation of 325 kgs of fortified rice, 20 kgs Redgram dal, and 24 kgs (1/2 kg packets) of sugar in petitioner’s shop. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.12.2024 stating that the entire stock for the month has been allocated and handed over to the MDU operator, Sri Bellari Kuruba Satheesh for door-to-door distribution in accordance with the prevalent government policy. However, despite the said explanation, the respondents passed non-speaking orders on 27.12.2024 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization without conducting any enquiry. Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27208 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court with the following direction: <Since the appointment of the petitioner has not been cancelled or suspended, the petitioner is entitled to continue to supply the commodities as FP shop dealer as usual until such appointment is suspended or terminated by following due procedure of law. The writ petition is disposed of and the respondent authorities are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner on complying the requirements for such supply, until the appointment is suspended or terminated by following due procedure of law.= c) After disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the 3rd respondent on 09.01.2025 reiterating all the grounds raised in his earlier explanation. d) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without considering the explanation and without examining the said MDU operator to whom the stock was handed over by the petitioner and without assigning any 5 VS,J W.P.No.28266 of 2025 reasons, has passed the impugned orders on 11.08.2025 vide Rc.No.K6/06/2025. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the original cancellation order passed by the 4th respondent on 27.12.2024 vide Rc.No.B2/1277/2024, it can be observed that the 4th respondent except stating that the explanation filed by the Fair Price Shop dealer is not convincing and not being taken into consideration, has not assigned any reasons as to why it is not convincing. However, basing on the material available on record, the 4th respondent straight away cancelled the petitioner’s authorization by directing the Tahsildar to make alternative arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders. The said order was further confirmed by the 3rd respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 11.08.2025 even without conducting enquiry and without application of mind and without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in a proper manner. 5. In that regard, the Judgment in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , under similar circumstances, has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 1 2016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 6 VS,J W.P.No.28266 of 2025 6. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 7. In the light of the above observations, both the proceedings dated 27.12.2024 passed by the 4th respondent as well as subsequent order passed by the 3rd respondent on 11.08.2025 are without consideration of the petitioner’s explanation and without examining the MDU operator, who was alleged to have been handed over the stock as on the date of the inspection. Since these orders are passed without assigning the reasons, this Court feels both the orders are liable to be set aside. As alternative arrangements have already been made, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to remand the matter back to the 4th respondent for fresh enquiry. 7 VS,J W.P.No.28266 of 2025 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and both the proceedings dated 27.12.2024 passed by the 4th respondent and subsequent order passed by the 3rd respondent on 11.08.2025 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 4th respondent for fresh enquiry by giving a notice to the petitioner, calling for an explanation, and also examining the MDU operator and pass appropriate orders duly assigning the reasons in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 16.10.2025 KGR