APHC010324152019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJAT WRIT PETITION NO: 15342/2019 Between: 1. SMT.M.VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O E.RAMANA GOUD, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.31, R/O. DEVARABANDA VILLAGE, DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 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 toto issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature , of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.CS3/237/2019, Dt.NIL.09.2019 terminating the petitioner's dealership of Fair Price Shop No Mandal, Kurnool District, without supplying enquiry report, without recording the proper reasons and without proper opportunity of personal hearing as IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 15342/2019 SMT.M.VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O E.RAMANA GOUD, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.31, R/O. DEVARABANDA VILLAGE, DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL KURNOOL R, DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature , of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.CS3/237/2019, Dt.NIL.09.2019 terminating the petitioner's dealership of Fair Price Shop No. 1349031 of Devarabanda village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, without supplying enquiry report, without recording the proper reasons and without proper opportunity of personal hearing as IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER HA SMT.M.VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O E.RAMANA GOUD, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.31, R/O. DEVARABANDA VILLAGE, DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL KURNOOL R, DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature , of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.CS3/237/2019, Dt.NIL.09.2019 terminating the petitioner's . 1349031 of Devarabanda village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, without supplying enquiry report, without recording the proper reasons and without proper opportunity of personal hearing as 2 VS,J W.P.No.15342 of 2019 illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 proceedings Rc.CS3/237/2019, Dt.Nil.09.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1349031 of Devarabanda village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) 3 VS,J W.P.No.15342 of 2019 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition came to be 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 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.CS3/237/2019 Dt. NIL.09.2019 terminating the petitioner’s dealership of Fair Price Shop No.1349031 of Devarabanda Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, without supplying enquiry report, without recording the proper reasons and without proper opportunity of personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same, and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer for shop No.31 of Devarabanda Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District on 07.04.2017 by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings Rc.B.No.349 of 2017. Thereafter, her authorization has been extended from time to time. 3. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent, basing on the report alleged to have been submitted by the 4th respondent, issued a show cause notice on 22.08.2019, framing four charges against the petitioner. The 1st charge was that the petitioner has not maintained the timings prescribed by the Government. The 2nd charge was that the petitioner has distributed less quantity of rice, sugar and redgram dal to the card holders and the 3rd charge was that the petitioner has not produced his authorization for verification. 4. It is the case of the petitioner the she has submitted an explanation to the said show cause notice, duly stating that the petitioner has been running 4 VS,J W.P.No.15342 of 2019 the shop all these years, as per the prescribed timings only and after introduction of E-PoS machine, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the petitioner on correct weightage. With regard to the 3rd charge, the petitioner has stated that she has already paid challan for renewal of his authorization and has filed a copy of the challan along with the explanation, but, however, the renewal is pending before the concerned authorities. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without even considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry with the card holders, the respondents have straightaway terminated the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings in Rc.No.CS3/237/2019 dated Nil.09.2019. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 7. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner and further stated that the 2nd respondent, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, having recorded the appropriate reasons, has issued the impugned proceedings. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent has followed the rules laid under Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The 2nd respondent, only after giving an adequate opportunity to the petitioner and only after receiving her written explanation and thereafter, not being convinced of her explanation, 5 VS,J W.P.No.15342 of 2019 has issued the impugned proceedings assigning reasons for termination of the petitioner's dealership. 8. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that except referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, no reasons have been assigned by the 2nd respondent for not being convinced of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, the burden is put on the petitioner that she has failed to submit any documentary evidence to disprove the charges framed against her. It can also be observed that the 2nd respondent, without conducting any enquiry with the card holders to find out whether the petitioner is maintaining prescribed timings and whether the petitioner is supplying the essential commodities to the card holders, as per the requisite weightage or not, has straightaway issued the impugned termination proceedings simply stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others1, it was observed as under: “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 6 VS,J W.P.No.15342 of 2019 that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 9. Even this Court, in K. Sumathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, under similar circumstances has categorically held that the reasons for coming to the conclusion should reflect in the order and it is not sufficient to say for the quasi-judicial/administrative authority or the State that the explanation offered by a dealer is not convincing. 10. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 22016 (3) ALT 10 (S.B.) 7 VS,J W.P.No.15342 of 2019 11. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings terminating the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.CS3/237/2019 dated Nil.09.2019 are set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the original primary authority for fresh enquiry in the light of the observations made herein by giving notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months 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, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 17.09.2025 MDP