APHC010051792022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3486/2022 Between: 1. ADIMULAM SURESH, S/O NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO. 1145024, PULLAREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPET MANDAL, Y S R DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, RAJAMPET, Y S R DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PULLAMPET MANDAL, Y S R 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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the Order dated 20.1.2022 in Ref.No. LRDT/1901/2021 on the file of the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A P State Public Distribution, System Control Order and to consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1145024 of Pullareddipalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, YSR District Award costs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 VS,J W.P.No.3486 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 to issue interim directions to Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F P Shop No. 1145024 of Pullareddipalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, YSR District, without reference to the Order dated 20.1.2022 in Ref.No. LRDT/1901/2021 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of W P No. of 2022 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.3486 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the Order dated 20.1.2022 in Ref.No. LRDT/1901/2021 on the file of the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A P State Public Distribution, System Control Order and to consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1145024 of Pullareddipalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, YSR District Award costs and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer of the Shop No.1145024 of Pullareddipalli village of Pullampet mandal, YSR district in the year 2017 and ever since he has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While so, the Joint Collector, Kadapa alleging certain lapses on the part of the petitioner, vide order dated 17.08.2020, on the basis of report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Rajampet, dated 12.08.2020, suspended the authorization of the petitioner, pending finalization of the disciplinary case as per the Control Order, 2018. Thereafter, the Joint Collector commenced the enquiry and issued a show cause notice dated 24.09.2020 by framing charges. In response to the show-cause notice and the charges framed against the petitioner herein, the petitioner submitted an explanation and after 4 VS,J W.P.No.3486 of 2022 hearing the matter for some time, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.11, CA, F&CS(CS.I), dated 09.09.2020, the Joint Collector transferred the file to the 2nd respondent -Sub-Collector. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 18.12.2021, by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to attend the hearing on 07.01.2022, at 05:00 P.M. and in response thereto, on 07.01.2022, the petitioner herein attended the hearing and offered his explanation. In the said explanation, the petitioner stated that the stock was distributed manually to the cardholders during the Covid season by Biometric method and the finger was not updated to the online. Eventually, by way of the impugned order dated 20.01.2022, the Sub-Collector, Rajampet, on the ground that the petitioner violated conditions in para 21(c) and 29(a) of the Control (Order), 2018, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 17.02.2022, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of shop No.1145024 of Pullareddipalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, YSR District, without reference to the Order dated 20.01.2022 in Ref.No.LRDT/1901/2021 on the file of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr. N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 VS,J W.P.No.3486 of 2022 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished a copy of the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.11.2025 wherein it is stated that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner was continued as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1145024 of Pullareddipalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, YSR District. Thereafter, a criminal case in FIR.No.02/2025, on the file of Pullampet Police station dated 1301.2025 was instituted against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is illegally transporting certain commodities, as such, the petitioner was again placed under suspension and the fair price shop was handed over to the Village Revenue Officer, Ananthasamudram village. 7. It can be observed from the impugned proceedings dated 20.01.202 that the Assistant Supply Officer, Rajampet along with Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rly Kodur inspected the petitioner‟s fair price shop on 10.08.2020 and found certain variations in the ground stock i.e. (-)501.24 kilograms of PDS rice, (-)11.815 kilograms of sugar, (-)50 kilograms of R.G. Dal, (-)61.60 kilograms of chana, (-)44 kilograms of Ragi and (-)97 kilograms of Jowar. As such, the Assistant Supply Officer, Rajampet submitted a report dated 12.08.2020 stating that the petitioner is doing clandestine business and that the petitioner has violated conditions stipulated in 21(c) and 29(1) of the Control Order, 2018. For better appreciation, 21(c) and 29(1) of the Control Order, 2018 are extracted hereunder: 6 VS,J W.P.No.3486 of 2022 “21. Penalties for possessing cards, making false entries or diverting stock - (c) If any fair price shop dealer diverts PDS stock either wholly or partly, the dealer shall be liable for cancellation of authorization besides penalty ten times the difference between the market rate and Targeted Public Distribution System rate of the commodity thus diverted. 29. Marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops: No prosecution shall be launched in certain mistakes / lapses / omission / irregularities indicated below (which are illustrative and not exhaustive) against the Fair Price Shop Dealers. (a) Minor variation in respect of single commodity upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month, (b) Mistake in mathematical totalling, clerical or error on account of device and accounting errors in the maintenance of prescribed registers.” 8. Basing on the said report, the Joint Collector, YSR District, Kadapa suspended the petitioner‟s authorization of his fair price shop vide proceedings dated17.08.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 24.09.2020 seeking his explanation within seven days and further directing him to appear before the Joint Collector, Kadapa on 03.10.2020. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the authority and submitted his explanation. Subsequently, due to the amendment in APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, the 2nd respondent herein became the appointing and disciplinary authority and accordingly, the file was transferred to the 2nd respondent. 9. As such, the 2nd respondent has again issued a notice to the petitioner on 18.12.2021 directing the petitioner to appear before him on 07.01.2022 along with explanation, wherein it is stated that at the time of Covid-19 7 VS,J W.P.No.3486 of 2022 pandemic, stocks were distributed manually to the cardholders for a period of three months by one Narasimhulu, VRA. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 cancelling the petitioner‟s fair price shop authorization. Admittedly, no reason was assigned by the 2nd respondent for his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner nor had he conducted an enquiry with regard to the explanation submitted by the petitioner that during Covid-19 pandemic, commodities were distributed by the VRA to the cardholders for a period of three months. In B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1 this Court, while dealing with the importance of conducting enquiry, observed as under: “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 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. 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 8 VS,J W.P.No.3486 of 2022 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.” 10. It can be observed that the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the respondent No.2 is without considering the explanation of the petitioner and without assigning any reasons and without conducting any enquiry 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 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 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 9 VS,J W.P.No.3486 of 2022 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.” 11. 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. 12. 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 3rd respondent 10 VS,J W.P.No.3486 of 2022 has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 13. Even otherwise, the respondents have failed to produce any material on record alleging that the petitioner has violated conditions 21(c) and 29(1) of the Control Order, 2018 and that the petitioner is involved in clandestine business. As such, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set-aside. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 20.01.2022 in Ref.No.LRDT/1901/2021 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set-aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner, if he is found at fault, in any other instance. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 04.11.2025 Gss