APHC010148872020 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: 9100/2020 Between: 1. B.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O B.SUBBANNA, AGE. 58, R/O D.NO.5/1 TO 5/15, P.C.PYAPILI VILLAGE, VAJRAKARURU MANDAL, ANANTHAAPURAMU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATEC S, ANANTHAAPURAMU, ANANTHAAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTHAAPURAMU, ANANTHAAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VAJRAKARURU MANDAL, VAJRAKARURU, ANANTHAAPURAMU 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.K6/31/2020 dt. 9-3-2020 confirming the order of the 3rd 2 VS,J W.P.NO.9100 OF 2020 respondent in D.Dis.K3/2670/2019 dated 25-11-2019 and set aside the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.K3/2670/2019 dated 25-11-2019 and the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.K6/31/2020 dt. 9-3-2020, 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 order passed by the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.K3/2670/2019 dated 25-11-2019 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.K6/31/2020 dt.9-3-2020 and allow the petitioner to run the Fair Price shop No. 1204025 of P.C.Pyapili Thanda of Vajrakaruru Mandal, Anantapuramu District, pending deposal of the above Writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.9100 OF 2020 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “....…to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.K6/31/2020 dt. 9-3-2020 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.K3/2670/2019 dated 25-11-2019 and set aside the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.K3/2670/2019 dated 25-11- 2019 and the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.K6/31/2020 dt. 9-3-2020, and pass....” 2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1204025 of P.C.Pyapili Thanda in pursuance to the authorization issued by the respondents in the year 2019. 3. While the matter being so, on 27.08.2019 at about 3:30 PM the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) along with Mandal Revenue Inspector of Vajrakaruru Mandal, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and submitted a report to the 4th respondent, in pursuance of which, the 4th respondent reported to the 3rd respondent stating that the inspecting officials have found certain lapses and recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner. Basing on the said report, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 01.10.2019 duly framing three charges against the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. 4. Upon considering of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent dropped the charge No.1 on the ground that as the variation was only 10 kgs of excess rice which is a minor variation and as per clause 29(a) 4 VS,J W.P.NO.9100 OF 2020 of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, a minor variation in respect of single commodity up to 1.5% may be allowed, taking into consideration of transactions of one month. However, charge Nos. 2 & 3 which allege that the petitioner is running fair price shop by binami dealer and the petitioner is running a fair price shop in the house other than the address mentioned in the authorization, are held to be proved stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing and thereby the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled by the 3rd respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and he has confirmed the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 5. When the matter came up for admission, on 27.05.2020, this Court considering the fact that an identical issue raised was decided by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, holding that the proceedings under Section 6-A is a separate procedure and that cancellation or suspension cannot be done basing on the enquiry conducted under Section 6-A of the Act, this Court was pleased to grant an suspension of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. 6. On perusal of the explanation, with regard to the allegation that the petitioner was running the fair price shop through a binami dealer it can be observed that the petitioner was very much present in the fair price shop on the date of inspection and respondent had obtained his signature on the mediatornama after completion of the inspection, which fact establishes that the petitioner was present in the shop. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.9100 OF 2020 7. With regard to the charge No.3, that the petitioner is running a fair price shop in the premises other than the premises mentioned in the authorization, the petitioner has specifically stated that he is running the shop in the authorized premises mentioned in the form of authorization the door No.8-3- 227, PC Pyapili Thanda Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anatapuramu District and the petitioner has also stated that the charge does not spell out the door number which has been changed by the petitioner other than the address mentioned in the form of the authorization. The 3rd respondent without considering all these aspects and the explanation submitted by the petitioner has simply passed an order stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and the petitioner’s authorization is liable to be cancelled. Even the appellate authority, in spite of the specific grounds raised by the petitioner has dismissed the appeal by confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, without looking into the explanation and the grounds raised by the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled based on the 6-A report submitted by the Tahsildar without there being a separate report for initiating disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner. 8. Though the matter is pertaining to the year 2020 till date no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on oral instructions, has stated that, in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner is being continued to run the fair price shop even as on today. 6 VS,J W.P.NO.9100 OF 2020 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 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 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. Consequently, the impugned proceedings 7 VS,J W.P.NO.9100 OF 2020 of the 3rd respondent dated 25.11.2019 as well as the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 09.03.2020 upholding the order passed by the 3rd respondent are set-aside. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner until and unless any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. 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 8 VS,J W.P.NO.9100 OF 2020 215 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 9100/2020 Dated: 16.09.2025 LSP