APHC010455242025 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: 23870/2025 Between: 1. J VENKATA RATHNAM, S/O. YESURATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0724034, BETHAPUDI VILLAGE, PHIRANGIPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMERAFFAIRS CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PHIRANGIPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 Order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the a shop No. 0724034 in Bethapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, vide proceedings Rc. No. 1986/2025-B, dated 23.08.2025 without conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Art of 14, 19 21 and 2 VS,J W.P.No.23870 of 2025 also violation of control order, 2018 Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in F.P. shop No. 0724034 in Bethapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District and pass 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc. No. 1986/2025-B, dated 23.08.2025 of the petitioner by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in F.P. shop No. 0724034 in Bethapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of 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: 3 VS,J W.P.No.23870 of 2025 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 Order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.0724034 in Bethapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, vide proceedings Rc. No. 1986/2025-B, dated 23.08.2025 without conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Art of 14, 19 21 and also violation of control order, 2018 Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price shop dealer in F.P. shop No.0724034 in Bethapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District...” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0724034, Bethapudi Village, Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District in the year 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner‟s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaints from any corner. b) While things stood thus, on 24.07.2025, at about 11.00 a.m., the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar (CSDT), Tadikonda along with the Village Revenue Officer, Bethapudi Village, conducted a surprise inspection over the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop in the presence of the mediators. After verifying 4 VS,J W.P.No.23870 of 2025 the stock available in the shop with reference to the e-Pos device report, the 4th respondent seized the available stock of fortified rice of 105.12 quintals, 237 packets of R.G. Dall and 714 packets of sugar and handed them over to another Fair Price Shop dealer i.e., Sk.Khaja Vali, for temporary safe custody. c) Thereafter, basing on report dated 24.07.2025 submitted by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar (CSDT), Tadikonda, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice on 31.07.2025, framing a single charge that the petitioner has diverted 3.33 quintals of fortified rice to the black market without distributing to the cardholders, thereby violating Clause 12(f) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven (7) days as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. For which, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 05.08.2025, duly stating that after removal of the MDU operator system, the dealers were directed to distribute commodities at their respective shops from June 2025 onwards. As Regulagadda Village is situated at a distance of 4 km away from his shop at Bethapudi, the cardholders could not come to the shop at Bethapudi Village. Since there are 150 cardholders in Regulagadda Village, and in order to ensure that the cardholders do not face any inconvenience, the petitioner took a shed of Sri Gajendra Brahmaiah, S/o Venkata Appaiah of Regulagadda Village and started distributing the commodities to the cardholders in Regulagadda Village and accordingly distributed the commodities for the months of June and July 2015. In the said explanation, the petitioner has also requested the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry with the cardholders of 5 VS,J W.P.No.23870 of 2025 Regulagadda Village with regard to taking a shed at Regulagadda Village and distributing essential commodities to the cardholders from the said shop. d) The grievance of the petitioner is that, the 3rd respondent without even conducting any enquiry as requested by the petitioner, has straightaway cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization vide proceedings dated 23.08.2025. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter, reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner, however, contended that the petitioner‟s explanation regarding storage and distribution from Gajendra Brahmaiah‟s shop is not correct and that the petitioner did not obtain permission from the authorities to distribute essential commodities to cardholders of Regulagadda Village. The respondents concluded that the petitioner diverted 3.33 quintals of fortified rice to the black market for personal gain, defeating the purpose of the Public Distribution System. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Though the 3rd respondent contends that the petitioner did not obtain permission to distribute essential commodities at Regulagadda Village, the petitioner specifically requested in his explanation that an enquiry be conducted with the cardholders regarding distribution from the shed of Sri Gajendra Brahmaiah at Regulagadda Village. In such a case, it is for the respondents to conduct an enquiry with the cardholders of the said village and 6 VS,J W.P.No.23870 of 2025 as well as with the said Gajendra Brahmaiah, whose shed the petitioner used for supplying essential commodities. However, in the present case, no such enquiry was conducted, which is admittedly contrary to the settled law laid down in the decision of B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court held as follows: “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. 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 7 VS,J W.P.No.23870 of 2025 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. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned cancellation order issued by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable, as it was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his case, as required under law. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Rc.No.1986/2025-B, dated 23.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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. KGR