APHC010297812023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 15244/2023 Between: 1. R MANJULA, D/O REDDEPPA, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO.1081046, R/O MADANAPALLI TOWN 86 MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 ...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.A3/2483/2022 dated 15.05.2023 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner FP Shop No.1081046 of Madanapalli Town and Mandal, Annamayya District Erstwhile Chittoor District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of FP No.1081046 of Madanapalli Town and Mandal, Annamayya District Erstwhile Chittoor District 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 suspend the proceedings of 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.A3/2483/2022 dated 15.05.2023 by directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's fair FP Shop No.1081046 of Madanapalli Town and Mandal, Annamayya District Erstwhile Chittoor District, pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to 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 receive additional affidavit along with documents in above writ petition no. 3 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 15244 of 2023 for proper adjudication of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant leave to the Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition No.15244 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 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 order of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.A3/2483/2022 dated 15.05.2023 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner FP Shop No.1081046 of Madanapalli Town and Mandal, Annamayya District Erstwhile Chittoor District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of FP No.1081046 of Madanapalli Town and Mandal, Annamayya District Erstwhile Chittoor District...” 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that:- a. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1081046 of Madanapalli Town and Mandal, Annayya District (erstwhile Chittoor District) in the year 2007. The petitioner‟s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complainant from any corner. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 b. While things stood thus, due to local village politics and recent changes in the government, the respondent authorities attempted to terminate the petitioner‟s dealership without any valid reason. They restrained themselves from issuing stocks to the petitioner and stopped supplying essential commodities on the ground that an inspection was conducted on 15.10.2022 by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar along with the Revenue Inspector of the Tahsildar‟s Office, during which certain variations in the stock were allegedly found. A report was submitted to the Tahsildar/4th respondent, who in turn submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer/3rd respondent on 17.10.2022. Based on this report, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 01.04.2023 framing three charges against the petitioner and calling for an explanation as to why the authorization should not be cancelled for the alleged irregularities. The petitioner was also directed to attend an enquiry on 17.04.2023. For which, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 17.04.2023 and appeared before the 3rd respondent. However, without conducting any proper enquiry, the 3rd respondent cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization vide proceedings 6 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 Rc.No.A3/2483/2022 dated 15.05.2023. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter, admitting the facts stated by the petitioner. However, it is stated that a show cause notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 14.12.2022 for personal enquiry. As the petitioner failed to attend for enquiry, a final notice was issued vide reference Roc:A3/2483/2022 dated 01.04.2023 directing the petitioner to appear in person on 17.01.2023 for personal enquiry. The petitioner subsequently appeared for enquiry and submitted a written explanation. After perusing the explanation and verifying the records, the charges were held to be proved, and the petitioner‟s authorization was cancelled vide proceedings dated 15.05.2023, on the ground that the explanation offered by the petitioner was found not convincing; however, except stating that the explanation was not satisfactory, there is no mention of any enquiry having been conducted prior to cancellation of the 7 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 petitioner‟s authorization, which is mandatory under the Control Order, 2018. 5. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-Clause(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 which has been held to be mandatory by this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others 1 observed as extracted hereunder: “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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 8 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 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 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.” 6. In view of the above discussion and the observation in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others (supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings dated 15.05.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set- aside. 7. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 15.05.2023, and the 9 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for conducting a enquiry after issuing a fresh notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner. The entire process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :05.11.2025 LSP 10 VS,J W.P.NO.15244 OF 2023 271 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 15244/2023 05.11.2025 LSP