I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1994 OF 2025 Between: K Dasthagiri, S/o Late K Abdul Gafoor, Aged about 55 years, Occ Fair Shop Dealer, Fair Price Shop No. 1283018, Rayadurg Town and Mandal, R/o Lakshmi Bazar, Rayadurg, Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, Anantapur District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurgam, Anantapur District. The Tahsildar, Rayadurgam Mandal, Anantapur District. The Deputy Tahsildar, Rayadurgam Mandal, Anantapur District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 4th respondent in canceling the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop Dealer vide shop No. 1283018 situated at Rayadurg Town and Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh vide Rc. No. B2/1418/2024 dated 27.12.2024 is illegal, achitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set a^e Jhe same and allow the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Dealer op No. 1283018 situated at Rayadurg Town and Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. - 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 suspend the orders passed by the 4th respondent vide Rc. No. B2/1418/2024 dated 27.12.2024 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: 0i APHC010039302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1994/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER K Dasthagiri AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AYESHAAZMAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief; “...to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 4 respondent in canceling the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop dealer vide shop No.1283018 situated at Rayadurg Town and Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh vide Rc.No B2/1418/2024 dated 27.12.2024 is illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and allow the petitioner to continue as fair th 2 BSB, W.P.No.1994 of2025 price shop dealer vide shop No 1283018 situated at Rayadurg Town and Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh and pass such other order or orders... ” 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.1283018 of Rayadurg town and mandal, Ananthapur district, Andhra Pradesh. The 6 respondent does not permit the petitioner to supply the stock to the cardholders when the authorization is still subsisting. The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.27367 of 2024 before this Court requesting to set aside the panchanama dated 04.11.2024 issued by 5^^ respondent without conducting any inspection. On 25.11.2024, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to supply essential commodities to the petitioner. On 13.11.2024, the 3^'^ respondent issued a show cause notice vide Rc.No.K9/378/2024 and seized the stock from the custodian of the Village Revenue Officer (VRO), Rayadurg town and directed to dispose of the same until the finalization of the case proceeded on report under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation against the charges in the show cause notice issued by the 4 respondent vide RC.No.B2/1418/2024 dated 16.12.2024 and the petitioner submitted explanation for the charges framed as follows: th th “Charge No.1: That the fair price shop dealer has failed to make available schedule commodities physically as per the balances shown in the e-PoS generated prints to cross-check the variation in stocks. There is 14477 (sic 1447) kgs fortified rice excess, Redgram dal 797 kgs excess, 797 sugar 14 kg packets excess, and jower 7.67 quintals excess in the fair price shop at the time of inspection which violates clause 12(p)(3) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.” Explanation: The dealer submitted when the Deputy Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer (VRO) came to the fair price shop on 04.11.2024 for 4 3 ^4. BSB,J W.P.No.1994 of 2025 inspection it had been informed them that the dealer had handed over the stock to M.D.U operator Syed Noor Basha and he had taken delivery, but the delivery van had been under breakdown for the last 8 months and so he had been distributing the commodities from the shop of the dealer to the card holders and the same had been informed many times to the Deputy Tahsildar, Rayadurg and to the checking authorities; and that once the stock was handed over to the M.D.U operator, it should be in his control, and while so, the checking authorities had inspected the stocks, seized the shop, put their ■ lock, taken away ePoS machine and weighing machine and taken the signature of the dealer on the inspection report. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings of cancellation of the dealership of the petitioner by the impugned order. It is the main contention that no enquiry as contemplated under clause 8(4) of the Control order 2018 was held by examining the MDU operator to whom the stock was handed over, in this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others^ “27. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 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; 3. ^ 2015^SCC Online Hyd 680 (2015) 6 AID 359 (2015) 6 ALT 791 4 BSB, W.P.No.1994 of 2025 (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; (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 5 BSB,J W.P.No.1994 of2025 suitable orders imposing penalty or appropriate cases, he/she can pass let off with a warning.” 4 The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that remedy to petitioner to challenge the proceedings of cancellation of the dealership is appeal before the Joint Collector and infact in the present case an appeal had been filed by the petitioner and therefore the remedy does not lie by filing writ petition. the to file learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since the 5. In reply the appointing authority failed to consider the explanation and pass reasoned order, this writ petition is filed challenging impugned order which of law. However, the appeal was filed as per the is not according to provisions remedy provided under the control order. Since already appeal was filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is at all the remedies available under law before the appellate 6. liberty to pursue authority. The learned counsel for petitioner apprehended that it may take long time for disposal of the appeal due to the other work before the appellate authority and thereby the petitioner would be put to loss and hardship. In view thereof the writ petition is disposed of directing the appellate 7. expeditiously dispose of the appeal within one month from the authority to date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the impugned order gets suspended without any further order. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRiNiVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER S To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurgam, Anantapur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Rayadurgam Mandal, Anantapur District. 5. The Deputy Tahsildar, Rayadurgam Mandal, Anantapur District. 6. One CC to M/s. Ayesha Azma S Advocate [OPUC] 7. 8. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies GSC » HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.1994 of 2025 I 17 MAR 2025 ^. Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS