APHC010200152020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 12983/2020 Between: 1. BODDUVARAMMA@ VARALAKSHMI, W/O RAMA RAO, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC R/O.MUVVAVARIPALEMVILLAGE,CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. JOINT COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAMDISTRICT 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE REVENUE DIVISION, PRAKSAMDISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.CS2(5)/256819/2020, dt. 16.07.2020passed by the 2ndrespondent thereby suspended the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.0829028 situated in MuvvavaripalemVillage, ChimakurthyMandal, Prakasam District without conducting enquiry and without recording the reasons for suspension is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural 2 VS,J W.P.No.12983 of 2020 justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders and to 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 to suspend the proceedings in Rc.No. CS2(5)/256819/2020, dt.16.07.2020passed by the 2ndrespondent and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for No.0829028 situated in MuvvavaripalemVillage, ChimakurthyMandal, PrakasamDistrictby supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders, pending disposal of main Writ Petition 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 vacate the Interim order dated 06.08.2020 passed in W.P.No. 12983 of 2020 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOLLURI ARJUN CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.12983 of 2020 ORDER: This writ petition is 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 proceedings in Rc.No.CS2(5)/256819/2020, dt. 16.07.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent thereby suspended the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.0829028 situated in Muvvavaripalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District without conducting enquiry and without recording the reasons for suspension is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair Price Shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0829028 situated in Muvvavaripalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District in the year 2003 by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner’s authorization was extended from time to time. The petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any adverse remarks at any point of time. b) While the things stood thus, due to local village political pressure, the respondents conducted inspection of the petitioner’s shop on 16.07.2020 and 4 VS,J W.P.No.12983 of 2020 alleged to have found some variations in the essential commodities i.e., PDS rice and RG dal and thereafter basing on the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, S.Konda, dated 06.07.2020, the Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District has passed the impugned order dated 16.07.2020 suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that without issuing show-cause notice calling for explanation, straight away the petitioner’s authorization has been placed under suspension pending enquiry. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 06.08.2020, this Court passed the following interim order: “....The counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.12593 of 2020 by following the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in M.Kalyani vs. District Collector, 2006 (5) ALD 796, suspended the impugned order therein. In terms of the above order, there shall be suspension of the proceedings dated 16.07.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent till 20.08.2020.” 4. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition inter alia stating that the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, S.Konda having inspected the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner found certain irregularities and submitted a detailed report about the variations in the stock. Basing on which, the petitioner’s authorization has been placed under suspension pending enquiry. It is further contended that a show-cause notice was also issued to 5 VS,J W.P.No.12983 of 2020 the petitioner vide Rc.No.CS2(5)/256819/2020, dated 16.07.2020, and on the same date, suspended the petitioner’s authorization. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization was cancelled solely on the basis of the report dated 06.07.2020 submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, S.Konda, without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner. He further submits that the said report was not furnished to the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in M.Kalyani v. District Collector and Ors.1 . 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit, would support the impugned order. 8. As can be seen from the record, the impugned order of suspension of the authorization of the petitioner was passed based on the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, S.Konda dated 06.07.2020. There is nothing on record to show that a copy of the said report was supplied to the petitioner before issuing impugned suspension order. Though it is contended in the 1 2006 (5) ALD 796 6 VS,J W.P.No.12983 of 2020 counter affidavit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as can be seen from the copy of the said show-cause notice filed along with the counter affidavit, it is clear that both the said show-cause notice and the impugned order were passed on the very same day i.e., 16.07.2020. It is thus clear that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to submit her explanation before passing of the impugned suspension order. In M.Kalyani v. District Collector and Ors., the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the case whether the report which formed the basis of the charge was not supplied to the appellant therein, held as under: In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No. 3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. It is not in dispute that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to the appellant. In K. Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and Ors. 1996 (1) ALD 473 : 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP) , it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case effectively. It was further held that the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfil the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show-cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. In that case the petitioner therein had been given opportunity of personal hearing but even then the Court held that the opportunity was not real inasmuch as 7 VS,J W.P.No.12983 of 2020 the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer. In S. Malla Reddy Vs. M. Vijayalakshmi and Others, , this Court held that the authorization of fair price shop could not have been cancelled on the basis of vague notice.” 9. Following the above judgment, in view of the fact that the copy of the report of Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, S.Konda dated 06.07.2020, which is the basis for the impugned suspension order, was not supplied to the petitioner and no opportunity to submit explanation was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned suspension order, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings dated 16.07.2020 is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 16.07.2020 issued by the Collector, Prakasam District. 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 22.09.2025 KGR