IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHU WRIT PETITION NO: 30655 OF 2024 ^ Between: B Sreenath Reddy, S/o late B. Hanumantha Reddy Aged about 43 years, F.P. Shop dealer. Shop No. 1223019, R/o 1-4, Borampalli village, Kalyanadurgam Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER— AND 1. The State of AP, Rep by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Collector (Civil Supplies), Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu District. 3. The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Kalyanadurgam, Ananthapuramu District. 4. The Tahasildar (Civil Ananthapuramu District. 5. The Deputy Tahasildar, Kalayanaduram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. Supplies), Kalyanadurgam Mandal ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 22d^f the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings D.Dis.No.B2/905-1/2024 dated 16-12-2024 cancelling the authorization of Writ Petitioner Fair Price Shop one No. 1223019, Borampalli village, Kalyanadurgam Mandal, Ananthapu District without issuing reasonable opportunity of hearing, recording proper reasons and by supplying the enquiry report of 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary against to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same by permitting the writ petitioner to supply the stocks to the card holders of Fair price shop no. 1223019, Borampalli village, Kalyanadurgam Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ^ ramu lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 permit the writ petitioner to supply the stocks to the card holders of Fair price shop no. 1223019, Borampalli village, Kalyanadurgam Mandal, Ananthapuramu District by suspending the Proceedings of the 3rd respondent D.Dis.No.B2/905-1/2024 dated 16-12-2024. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. J JYOTHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010587672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 30655/2024 Between: B Sreenath Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.J.JYOTHI 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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings D.Dis.No.B2/9051/2024 dated 16.12.2024 cancelling the authorization of writ petitioner fair price shop no.1223019 Borampalli village, Kalyanadurgam Mandal Ananthapuramu District without issuing reasonable opportunity of hearing recording proper reasons and by supplying the enquiry report of 4th 2 W.P.No.30655 of2024 respondent as illegal arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same by permitting the writ petitioner to supply the stocks to the card holders of Fair price shop no.1223019 Borampalli village Kalyanadurgam Mandal Ananthapuramu District and pass such other order... The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: ij 2. The petitioner is the permanent dealer of the fair price shop of Borampalli village, Kalyanadurgam Ananthapuram District. The petitioner supplied commodities till 31.03.2024. On 13.02.2024, the petitioner paid fee for renewal of the authorization and submitted the same to the 3'"^ respondent. It is pending No.1223019 Mandal consideration. On 05.09.2024, the 5^^ respondent, along with the Village Revenue Officer, Borampalli village Kalyanadurgam Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and the mediators, inspected the shop of the petitioner and prepared panchanama. The alleged variation in the stock is as follows:- si. Name of the commodity OB Stock reserved as per Total Quantity Distribution (in kgs) Closing balance Closing balance Physical variation No. (on (in as per ePos machine in Kg) RO ground in Kg) Kg/Its Fortified rice 1 0.11 75.24 75.35 74.95 1.97 0.40 (+)1.57 2 Sugar (1/2) kgs pkts 0 499 499 484 15 15 0 3 Jowar (kgs) 0.05 0 0.05 0 0 0.05 (-)0.05 After the inspection, the 5*'' respondent seized the stock, epos machine and weighing machine and they were handed over to the VRO, Borampalli for custody. The 3'^'^ respondent issued showcause notice on 3 BSB,J W.P.No.30655 of 2024 the petitioner vide Rc.No.905-1/2024 dated 29.09.2024 framing the following two charges basing on the report of 4'*^ respondent. “Charge No.1: That the fair price shop dealer has failed to make available schedule commodities physically as per the balances shown in the epos generated prints to cross check the variation in stocks. There is excess of 157 kgs of fortified rice and 0.05 kgs jowar less in the fair price shop at the time of inspection and contravened the clause 12(P)(3) of A.P.S.T.P.D.S (control) Order, 2018. Charge No.2: That the fair price shop dealer was diverted 157 kgs of fortified rice; 0.05 kgs of jowar into black market and indulged in clandestine business for her pecuniary gains and contravened the clause 21 (c) (D) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018.” The petitioner submitted explanation to the 3^'^ respondent denying the allegations and further stating that there would not be enough excess stock if the allegation that the stock was diverted to black market is true. When a false case was foisted to satisfy the local political leaders, previously the petitioner filed W.P.27179 of 2024 as the stock was not supplied to the petitioner. The writ petition was ordered on 25.11.2024 directing the respondents to supply the commodities till the appointment is suspended or cancelled by following due procedure of law upon submission of the explanation by the petitioner. However, the impugned order D.Dis.No.B2/905-1/2024 dated 16.12.2024 was passed by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition was filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since due procedure of law was not followed in passing the impugned order, this writ petition was filed. In this regard he stated that no personal hearing was 4. % ■ BSB, J I W.P.No.30655of2024 given to the petitioner during the course of enquiry examined as required. He reiterated the explanation of the petitioner. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurg 23.12.2024 which are replica of the impugned order. He contended that there is no impugnity in the order and that the writ petition does not lie an alternative remedy of appeal is available as per the Clause 24 of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. In C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Civil Supplies), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others\ it was held at paragraph No.27 as follows; nor was any witness dated as “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 warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; case (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. (2015) 6 ALT 791 -N 5 BSB,J W.P.No.30655 of 2024 (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 appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.” I i In the light of the above proposition of law, when the impugned order is perused, it shows that the procedure contemplated has not been duly adopted, as such, the impugned order is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The contents of the table indicate that the alleged variation of the stock of fortified rice is a little more than permissible limit. Therefore, the 3'^'^ respondent ought to have scrupulously followed the procedure for enquiry indicated above. For non-compliance of the mandatory procedure, particularly in view of small marginal variation above the permissible limit, this is a case fit for intervening. 6. T 6 ^ ’ BSB,J ^ W.P.No.30655 of2024 In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order vide D.Dis.No.B2/905-1/2024 dated 16.12.2024 is set aside. 7. \ 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 RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER 1 To, 1. The Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi Guntur District. r > , 2. The Collector(Civil Supplies), Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu District. ^ Dislrict^^'^^'^'^^ Divisonal Officer, Kalyanadurgam, Ananthapuram 4. The Tahasildar (Civil Ananthapuramu District. ^ ol^^ric?^^^^^ Tahasildar, Kalayanaduram Mandal, Ananthapuramu 6. One CC to Smt. J.Jyothi Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies u Supplies) Kalyanadurgam Mandal TF \ V a \ HIGH COURT \ DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.30655 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS