APHC010626352022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 37497/2022 Between: 1. Y CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, S/O THIMMA REDDY, AGE 54 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O H.NO.4-35-1, NAKKAVAGULAPALLI VILLAGE, DHONE .MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Rc.F.80/2022, dated 29-09-2022, cancelling the petitioner's dealership to the Fair Price Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District basing on the Panchanama report dated 19-03-2022 submitted by the 4th respondent, though the petitioner filed renewal application and remitted an 2 VS,J W.P.No.37497 of 2022 amount of Rs.1,000/- on 31-03-2022 and Rs.4,000/- on 23-06-2022, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Rc.F.80/2022, dated 29-09-2022 and direct the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the the petitoner's Fair Price Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the the petitoner's Fair Price Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District by suspending the operation of impugned proceedings vide Rc.F.80/2022, dated 29-09-2022, pending disposal of the 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 dt.29.11.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.37497 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. U RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.37497 of 2022 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.37497 of 2022 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Rc.F.80/2022, dated 29-09-2022, cancelling the petitioner's dealership to the Fair Price Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District basing on the Panchanama report dated 19-03-2022 submitted by the 4th respondent, though the petitioner filed renewal application and remitted an amount of Rs.1,000/- on 31-03-2022 and Rs.4,000/- on 23-06-2022, in respect of the Fair Price Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Rc.F.80/2022, dated 29-09-2022 and direct the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the the petitoner's Fair Price Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, vide letter No.158/KNL/DNE/2008, dated 07.04.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner‟s authorization was renewed up to the year 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the authorization was initially suspended by the 3rd respondent on 20.07.2014, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, upon consideration, restored the petitioner‟s authorization vide orders dated 30.12.2019. Since the date of restoration, the petitioner has been distributing the Essential Commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from any corner. 4 VS,J W.P.No.37497 of 2022 3. While the matter stood thus, on 19.03.2022, the inspecting team conducted an inspection and alleged that there was a variation in PMGKY rice found in the ground balance. A panchanama was drafted and the stock was seized. Basing on a report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 09.09.2022. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.09.2022. However, the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, without considering the said explanation, the 3rd respondent straightaway cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2022. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 29.11.2022, this Court, on perusal of material on record, particularly, Exs.P5 and P6, which showed that the petitioner had paid the requisite renewal fee for renewal of his authorization, granted interim order suspending the proceedings dated 29.09.2022. 5. In pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioner has continued as the Fair Price Shop dealer. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 7. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it appears that two charges were framed against the petitioner, (i) that there was a variation of 150kgs of PMGKAY rice found in excess in the ground balance and (ii) that the petitioner violated the provisions under Clause 20(f) of the APSTPDS (Control) order, 5 VS,J W.P.No.37497 of 2022 2018. For which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation. However, the petitioner‟s authorization has been cancelled mainly on the sole ground that the authorization was not renewed after 31.03.2016. The impugned proceedings itself refers that the petitioner remitted Rs.1,000/- on 31.03.2022 and Rs.4,000/- on 23.06.2022 towards renewal of authorization. In spite of this, the 3rd respondent concluded that mere remittance of renewal fee is not sufficient and cancelled the authorization on the premise that actual renewal was not granted. The said cancellation has been made without verifying the documents filed by the petitioner, without application of mind and without conducting the mandatory enquiry under the Control Order. 8. 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 others1 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.37497 of 2022 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 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.” 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the 3rd respondent is without considering the explanation of the petitioner and no reasons were assigned and no enquiry was conducted in relation to the objections and contentions raised in the explanation, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others2, 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 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 7 VS,J W.P.No.37497 of 2022 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 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.” 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. 11. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a 8 VS,J W.P.No.37497 of 2022 reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending 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 order dated 29.09.2022 of the 3rd respondent is set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to record reasons thereof. It is need less to state that the respondents shall restore the authorization of the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop No.53 of Nakkavagulapalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, till finalization of proceedings, if an enquiry is conducted afresh. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :01.12.2025 JLV 9 VS,J W.P.No.37497 of 2022 221 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 37497/2022 Date :01.12.2025 JLV