IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4833 OF 2025 Between: Sri J Nagabhushanam, S/o.J.Gundappa, Aged 45 years, Occ. F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop.No.1219037, R/o. Gollapalli Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravathi Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Anantapur District at Anantapur. The Joint Collector, Anantapur District at Anantapur. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyandurgam, Anantapur District. The Tahsildar, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4‘^ respondent in issuing proceedings D.Dis.No.B2/1445/2024 dated 17.01.2025 by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of F.P % Shop No.1219037, Gollapalli Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of . / . India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public tpi«tribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold — F.P Shop No. 1219037, Gollapalli Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District. lA 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s F.P Shop No.1219037, Gollapalli Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings of 4TH respondent vide D.Dis.No.B2/1445/2024 dated 17.01.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: % APHC010093812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4833/2025 Between: J Nagabhushanam ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KNARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4threspondent in issuing proceedings D.Dis.No.B2/1445/2024 dated 17.01.2025 by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of F.P Shop No.1219037, Gollapalli Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the 2 W.P.No.4833 of 2025 petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set- aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the hold F.P Shop No.1219037, Gollapalli Village, petitioner to Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District and pass... The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: 02. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer by the 4 respondent proceedings vide Rc.No.F/823/2008, dated 20.05.2008 on permanent basis of the fair price shop No.1219037 of Gollapalli Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District. Since then, he has been continuing his service without there being any remarks until the issuance of the vide D.Dis.No. cancellation order of the petitioner’s authorization B2/1445/2024, dated 17.01.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, despite a detailed explanation dated 26.12.2024, submitted to the 4‘^ respondent, which outlined the reasons for the variation, and which is referenced as No.4 in the impugned 03. order, the explanation was not properly examined. Without providing any was merely dismissed, and the reasons for its rejection, the explanation request of the petitioner was not considered. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Civil Supplies placed record the written instructions vide RC. No.B2/1445/ 2024, dated 22.02.2025, which are replica of the impugned order. 04. on 05. Perused the record. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except stating that the request of the dealer was not considered, the explanatpn of 06. 3 W.P.No.4833 of 2025 the petitioner was not examined either to accept or reject the same with respondents, nor was it passed as per the standards required in conducting the enquiry in view of the decision of this Court in G. Durga Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others\ the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly Clauses 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show-cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show-cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in Clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show-cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; ^2015(6)ALD359 W.P.No.4833 of 2025 # ' (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular Court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order, (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal, (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.” For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Although the petitioner has the option to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the AP STPDS Control Order, 2018, the impugned order is ex-facie illegal. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order vide D.Dis.No. B2/1445/2024, dated 17.01.2025, giving liberty to the 4‘^ respondent to conduct inquiry afresh in the light the above cited decision and 07. 08. 5 % W.P.No.4833 of 2025 pass an appropriate order thereafter. Till then, the petitioner shall continue to operate as a dealer, as usual, without any disruption. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/- K. SRINfVASA RAJU assistant ^GISTRAR SECTl^ OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh 2. The District Collector, Anantapur District at Anantapur. 3. The Joint Collector, Anantapur District at Anantapur. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyandurgam, Anantapur District. The Tahsildar, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District. f One CC to Sri. K Narsi Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. 6. 7. 8. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 < .'N- ORDER WP.No.4833 of 2025 ^ 0 ^ MAR 2025 Currem DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS