APHC010571812025 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: 29875/2025 Between: 1. B. RAGHU RAM,, S/O RAMANA, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.1304006, R/O H. BAPURAM VILLAGE, H/O HALE HARVI, NANDANAVANAM, NANDANAVANAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, ADONI, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, NANDANAVANAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRIC ...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 respondents, particularly, the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc. (M) 1374/2025, dated 04.06.2025 for not renewing the authorization No 5/DVM/2018 one of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No. VS,J W.P No.29875 of 2025 2 1304006, H. Bapuram Village, H/o Hale Harvi, Nandanavanam, Nandanavanam Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System control Order 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal Principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to me under article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A Constitution of India by setting aside the proceedings in Rc. (M) 1374/2025, dated 04.06.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and consequently direct the 4th respondent to renew the authorization No 5/NDVM/2018 of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 1304006, H. Bapuram Village, H/o Hale Harvi, Nandanavanam, Nandanavanam Kurnool District 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 pleased to direct the 4th respondent to renew the authorization No 5/NDVM/2018 of the petitioner9s Fair Price Shop No.1304006, H. Bapuram Village, H/o Hale Harvi, Nandanavanam, Nandanavanam Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P No.29875 of 2025 3 The Court made the following 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 respondents, particularly, the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc. (M) 1374/2025, dated 04.06.2025 for not renewing the authorization No.5/NDVM/2018 of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.1304006, H. Bapuram Village, H/o Hale Harvi, Nandanavanam, Nandanavanam Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System control Order 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal Principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to me under article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A Constitution of India by setting aside the proceedings in Rc. (M) 1374/2025, dated 04.06.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and consequently direct the 4th respondent to renew the authorization No 5/NDVM/2018 of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 1304006, H. Bapuram Village, H/o Hale Harvi, Nandanavanam, Nandanavanam, Kurnool District...= 2. The case of the petitioner is that: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price dealer for the Fair Price Shop No.1304006, situated H.Bapuram Village, H/o. Hale Harvi, Nandavanam Village and Mandal, Kurnool District on 10.01.2018 vide proceedings Rc.No.3397/2017. The authorization of the petitioner was renewed from time to time. b) While the things stood thus, the Special Tahsildar, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Kurnool, conducted an inspection over the petitioner9s fair price shop on 19.11.2021. On noticing certain variations, a case under Section 6(A) of the EC Act, 1955 was booked against the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has conducted an enquiry and passed final orders dated 18.02.2022 vide Rc.CS1/EC-209/2021, ordering confiscation of 100% of the seized stock i.e., 947 Kgs of PMGKAY rice, 559 VS,J W.P No.29875 of 2025 4 Kg of Sortex rice, 526 Kgs of ICDS rice, 118 Kg of MDM rice, 23 liters of Palm oil in favor of the Government. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that though a 6(A) case under EC Act was registered against the petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner either by suspending or cancelling his authorization, but however, the respondent No.4 solely basing upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Nandavanam dated 04.06.2025 refused to renew the petitioner9s authorization vide the impugned proceedings dated 04.06.2025 on the sole ground that the petitioner was involved in 6(A) case and that the said case was proved as per the confiscation orders passed by the Collector (CS), Kurnool vide Rc.CS1/EC-209/2021 dated 18.02.2022. Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents. 4. The respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner and would submit that during the inspection conducted on 19.11.2021, the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials on verification of the physical balance available in the fair price shop has found variation of (+)357 Kgs of PMGKAY rice and (-) 66.5 Kgs of Palm oil. Thereafter, a 6(A) case was booked against the petitioner and the respondent No.2 issued a Show Cause Notice under Section 6(B) of the EC Act on 28.01.2022. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, final confiscation orders dated 18.02.2022 were VS,J W.P No.29875 of 2025 5 passed confiscating 100% of the seized stock i.e., 947 Kgs of PMGKAY rice, 559 Kg of Sortex rice, 526 Kgs of ICDS rice, 118 Kg of MDM rice, 23 liters of Palm oil in favor of the Government without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 5. However, in the said counter, nowhere it is stated that, subsequent to the inspection conducted on 19.11.2021, any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner either by suspending or cancelling the petitioner9s authorization. 6. Admittedly, immediately after conducting an inspection, if at all any variations are found in the fair price shop, the Tahsildar is required to submit two reports: one to the appointing authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the dealer and another report to the Collector (CS) for initiating 6(A) proceedings under Section 6(A) of the E.C Act, 1955. This legal position has been clearly laid down by this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 and 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 8q9 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 VS,J W.P No.29875 of 2025 6 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. 7. However, in the present case, it can be observed that the Tahsildar has not submitted any report recommending the initiation of disciplinary proceedings but has submitted a report for initiation of proceedings under Section 6(A) case as against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, without initiating any disciplinary proceedings, the respondent No.4 cannot refuse the renewal of the authorization solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in 6(A) case. 8. In view of the above discussion and in the absence of two reports by the Tahsildar, impugned proceedings dated 04.06.2025 of the respondent No.4 are liable to be set aside. 9. With the above observations/directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4 for consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of his authorization. The said process shall be completed within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:24.12.2025 Ksj