APHC010111662023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 5650/2023 Between: 1. BANDARU MASTAN RAO, S/O B. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 0816035, CHINA KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. (OLD PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA DIVISION, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT 5. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, , ADDANKI MANDAL, ADDANKI, BAPATLA DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent 2 VS,J W.P.No.5650 of 2023 in issuing proceedings vide Rc. No. H/119/2022 dated 26-09-2022 wherein cancelled the petitioner authorization of Fair Price Shop Dealership of Shop No. 0816035, China Kothapalli Village, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District (Old Prakasam District) and the consequential appeal order passed by the 3rd respondent in Appeal Case No. 02(02)/2022/CS/BPT dated 10-02-2023, wherein dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner mechanically without conducting proper enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents permit the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pass orders by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 0816035, China Kothapalli Village, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District (Old Prakasam District) by suspending the proceedings vide Rc. No. H/119/2022 dt. No. H/119/2022 dt. 26-09-2022 issued by the 4th respondent and consequential appeal order passed by the 3rd respondent in Appeal Case No. 02(02)/2022/CS/BPT dated 10-02-2023, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 vacate the interim order dated 07-03-2023 passed in WP.No. 5650 of 2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.5650 of 2023 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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc. No. H/119/2022 dated 26-09-2022 wherein cancelled the petitioner authorization of Fair Price Shop Dealership of Shop No. 0816035, China Kothapalli Village, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District (Old Prakasam District) and the consequential appeal order passed by the 3rd respondent in Appeal Case No. 02(02)/2022/CS/BPT dated 10-02-2023, wherein dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner mechanically without conducting proper enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents permit the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities ….= 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0816035, China Kothapalli Village, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District about 15 years back. Since then, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaints or adverse remarks from anybody. b) While the matter stood thus, on 04.07.2021, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki along with EDT Ongole-1 and others inspected the petitioner?s shop and found certain variations in the stock when compared with 4 VS,J W.P.No.5650 of 2023 the physical stock available in his shop. Basing on the inspection report dated 05.07.2021 submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole issued a show-cause notice dated 06.07.2021 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within five days from the date of receipt of said notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.07.2021, explaining in detail the reasons for the alleged variations and denying the charge. The 4th respondent, after considering the explanation of the petitioner passed order dated 21.07.2021 suspending the petitioner?s authorization pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16490 of 2021 and the said writ petition was allowed on 04.03.2022, which reads as follows: <In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 21.07.2021 suspending the petitioner?s Fair Price Shop authorization is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside, directing the respondents to restore the petitioner?s authorization and continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner to supply the same to the cardholders without any interruption, pending final disciplinary action against the petitioner by conducting enquiry as per the provisions of clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and the law laid down by this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, Pidiki Sailaja v. State of Andhra Pradesh, C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, wherein it is held that before cancellation of the authorization, the disciplinary authority has to conduct himself an enquiry to prove the charges leveled against the dealer, by giving an opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry.= 5 VS,J W.P.No.5650 of 2023 c) In pursuance of the said order passed by this Court, the 4th respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear on 06.08.2021 for enquiry. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, the 4th respondent, without conducting any enquiry, issued proceedings dated 26.09.2022 cancelling the petitioner?s authorization, which was further confirmed in an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent, vide orders dated 10.02.2023. Challenging the orders dated 26.09.2022 and 10.02.2023, the present writ petition is filed. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 07.03.2023, this Court passed the following interim order: <….Considering the submissions and also the observations made by this Court in the above said judgment, the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent dated 10.02.2023 as well as the orders passed by the 4th respondent dated 26.09.2022 are suspended.= 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cancellation order dated 26.09.2022 is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2018, and also contrary to the law laid down by this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others. 6 VS,J W.P.No.5650 of 2023 6. Having considered the submissions and perused the material on record, this Court observed that admittedly no enquiry was conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2022, as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018. The 4th respondent cancelled the petitioner?s authorization solely basing on the inspection report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar, which is impermissible in law. 7. In that regard, the settled law laid down in the decision of B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court held as follows: <9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental Ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra. 10. An >enquiry? pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 7 VS,J W.P.No.5650 of 2023 persons. The licensing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry. 11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.= 8. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned cancellation order dated 26.09.2022 and the consequential appellate order dated 10.02.2023 are unsustainable, as they were passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without giving the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity of submitting his case, as required under law. 9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 26.09.2022 as well as the orders passed by the 3rd respondent dated 10.02.2023. The matter is remanded to the 4th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting a fresh enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks 8 VS,J W.P.No.5650 of 2023 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 23.12.2025 KGR