APHC010034512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 1784/2025 Between: 1. MACHEPALLI HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/O. ANKAIAH, AGE 47 YEARS, F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO- 0830021, CASTE BY MUDIRAJU(BC) KUCHIPUDI VILLAGE - 523 270, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 3. THE COLLECTORCS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, PODILI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 TCDS,J W.P.No.1784 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, to declaring the action of 4th respondent-R.D.O., Kanigiri, who canceled the authorization of the petitioner through his proceedings, dated 21-12-2024 in Rc.E/592/2024, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the sprit of Judgments of this Honble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set- aside the proceedings of 4th respondent-R.D.O., Kanigiri, dt.21-12-2024 in Rc.E/592/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop No- 0830021 of Kuchipudi Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, 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 may be pleased to stay the proceeding of orders of lerned R.D.O., Kanigiri(4‘''respondent), dated 21-12-2024 in Rc.E/592/2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 permit the petitioner to implead proposed 7th respondent as party in this W.P. No: 1784/2025 and also in the pending Interlocutory Application as Respondent No.7 therein, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PANGULURU RACHANA 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 TCDS,J W.P.No.1784 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 1784 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the 4th respondent whereunder the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0830021 of Kuchipudi village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District was cancelled. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer in the year 2008 and since then he is distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint and to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents. It is further case of the petitioner that the Food Inspector, Podili conducted inspection in the fair price shop of the petitioner on 05.11.2024 and found excess stock of PDS fortified rice. Thereafter, a panchanama was drawn on the same day and accordingly a report dated 06.11.2024 was submitted to the 4th respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. Based on the said report, the 4th respondent issued show cause notice dated 16.11.2024 to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why his authorization shall not be cancelled. The specific case of the respondents is that there is excess stock of 2,988 kgs of PDS fortified rice was available at the 4 TCDS,J W.P.No.1784 of 2025 time of inspection and another charge that was alleged against the petitioner that he failed to exhibit the stock-cum-price board in the premises of fair price shop. The petitioner claims that he has submitted explanation on 20.11.2024 whereunder he has stated that the excess stock found in the fair price shop was actually handed over to MDU Operator after taking the Biometric from him on the date of inspection i.e., on 05.11.2024. It is further case of the petitioner that since the MDU Operator could not lift the entire stock, as the MDU Operator used to take 20 bags (1000 kgs) per trip, therefore, the same was kept in the fair price shop, during which period, the inspection was done and found stock variation as alleged in the show cause notice. It is further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent, without properly considering the explanation dated 20.11.2024 submitted by him, passed the impugned order. It is further case of the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, despite asking for personal hearing, the 4th respondent denied the same, thereby violated the principles of natural justice and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would submit that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not supported either with the documentary proof and the statement of MDU Operator is not filed along with explanation. In the absence 5 TCDS,J W.P.No.1784 of 2025 of the same, the 4th respondent has rightly passed the impugned order and there are no irregularities as alleged by the petitioner. Insofar as the personal hearing is concerned, on perusal of the impugned order, personal hearing was offered to the petitioner on 13.12.2024 and again on 17.12.2024, the impugned order also clearly reveal that the petitioner himself attended before the authorities and argued the matter. It is further contended that by duly taking into consideration of the submissions of the petitioner, notices were also issued to the inspecting authority and the mediators on 06.12.2024 and 14.12.2024. In pursuance of the said notices, the inspecting authorities and the mediators were also present during the personal hearing that was conducted on 17.12.2024 and despite the same, the petitioner did not choose to cross examine the said persons. In reply, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that he filed further representation on the same day i.e., 17.12.2024 and the inspecting authority filed their statements during the course of personal hearing. He would further submit that the statements submitted by the inspecting authorities were not furnished to him. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the material available on record. 6 TCDS,J W.P.No.1784 of 2025 5. On overall consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is clear that show cause notice dated 16.11.2024 was issued clearly indicating that there is an excess stock of 2,988 kgs of PDS fortified rice available during the time of inspection. To which, the petitioner was submitted explanation on 20.11.2024 stating that the same was handed over to the MDU Operator so as to distribute the same to the card holders. In support of his contention, the petitioner has failed to substantiate the same by producing the MDU Operator before the 4th respondent during the personal hearing, nor his statement is placed on record. In the absence of the same, the contention of the petitioner cannot be believed. Insofar as opportunity of being heard is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner was heard on 13.12.2024 and 17.12.2024 and the same is apparent on perusal of the impugned order. Further on a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is succinctly clear that nowhere in the affidavit the petitioner has denied the conduction of personal hearing on 13.12.2024 and 17.12.2024. From the above, it is clear that opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed. As already noted supra, the explanation offered by the petitioner is not supported by any documentary evidence or the statement of MDU Operator. Further, there are disputed questions of facts are involved in the instant case 7 TCDS,J W.P.No.1784 of 2025 and the same cannot be gone into the present writ petition. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. It is needless to mention, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it is always open to him to avail the remedies available under law including filing of appeal under clause 24 of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date: 29.07.2025 sj 8 TCDS,J W.P.No.1784 of 2025 119 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 1784 of 2025 Date: 29.07.2025 sj