APHC010378682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19486/2025 Between: 1. P.YERRISWAM, S/O.P.THIMMAPPA , AGED 53 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO.1216004 R/O. BELUGUPPA (V) BELUGUPPA (M) ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALAYANADURG, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BELUGUPPA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the 2 VS,J W.P.NO.19486 OF 2025 High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings Rc.No.B4/330/2025, dated 16.06.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in shop No. 1216004, Beluguppa (v), Beluguppa (M), Anantapur District as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, without considering the contentions in the appeal, without following the procedure and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and futher direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute the essential Commodities to the card holders IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay the proceedings in Rc.No.B4/330/2025, dated 16.06.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent duly permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No. 1216004, Beluguppa (v), Beluguppa (M), Anantapur District Pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M HEMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.19486 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is 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 nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings Rc.No.B4/330/2025, dated 16.06.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in shop No.1216004, Beluguppa (v), Beluguppa (M), Anantapur District as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, without considering the contentions in the appeal, without following the procedure and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute the essential Commodities to the card holders...” 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that:- a. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for shop No.1216004 situated at Beluguppa (v), Beluguppa (M), Anantapur District. The petitioner‟s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to cardholders, without any complaints from any corner. b. While the matter being so, the 4th respondent conducted an enquiry with the cardholders and Village Revenue Officer, Beluguppa who stated that the petitioner has been 4 VS,J W.P.NO.19486 OF 2025 distributing rice with less weighment, misbehaving with cardholders, not distributing essential commodities properly, and not maintaining proper shop timings, thereby causing inconvenience to the cardholders. It was also reported that the petitioner was selling sugar (½ kg) at a higher price of Rs.20 instead of the fixed rate of Rs.17, and was not issuing ePOS distribution slips to the cardholders. Basing on enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar, on 18.03.2025, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 20.03.2025 to the petitioner calling for explanation within seven (7) days from the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 28.03.2025. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent even without conducting any enquiry with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner and by examining the respective cardholders who made a complaint to the 4th respondent in his presence have passed the impugned proceedings cancelling the petitioner‟s authorization vide proceedings dated 16.06.2025. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.19486 OF 2025 4. Admittedly, on perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2025, it can be seen that except referring to the report of the Tahsildar, the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9765 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025 and the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.06.2025, nowhere it was mentioned as to whom they have examined with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner. 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, is contrary to Sub-Clause(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 as held 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.NO.19486 OF 2025 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. 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 7 VS,J W.P.NO.19486 OF 2025 dated 16.06.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set- aside. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2025 vide Rc.No.B4/330/2025 issued by the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 15.10.2025 LSP 264 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19486/2025 8 VS,J W.P.NO.19486 OF 2025 Date : 15.10.2025 LSP