APHC010662052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34133/2025 Between: 1. M.ADINARAYANA, S/O M.CHINNAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. TEMPORARY FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO. 1257060, KAGGALLU VILLAGE, HINDUPURAM MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR, HINDUPURAM MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the Order dated 29.11.2025 in Rc. No. 2851/2025/C on the file of the 2nd Respondent herein, as illegal. arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and pass such 2 VS,J W.P.No.34133 of 2025 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 may be pleased to issue interim directions to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1257060 of Kaggallu Village,as Hindupuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District and release the essential commodities to the petitioner, as usual, without reference to the ■ impugned order dated 29.11.2025 in Rc. No. 2851/2025/C on the file of the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of W.P.No.of 2025 and pass such 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.34133 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 or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the Order dated 29.11.2025 in Rc. No.2851/2025/C on the file of the 2nd Respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018….” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.1257060 situated at Kaggallu Village, Hindupuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District in the year 2006. The petitioner‟s authorization was extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been running the Fair Price Shop without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. b) While things stood thus, basing on a report dated 18.09.2025 submitted by the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, Hindupur, alleging that a complaint was received from the cardholders of Kaggalu Village, Hindupur Mandal, to the effect that the petitioner was not residing in the Kaggallu village but was residing at Hindupur Town with his family, that he was not distributing essential commodities as per the timings prescribed by the Government, that he was supplying lesser weighments of rice to the cardholders, and that he was collecting higher prices for the essential commodities than fixed by the Government, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 4 VS,J W.P.No.34133 of 2025 03.11.2025 duly framing four charges and calling for an explanation from the petitioner. For which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 10.11.2025, duly enclosing evidentiary material to show that he was residing in Kaggalu Village but not at Hindupur Town. However, without conducting any enquiry, without examining the complainants, and without furnishing the statements allegedly obtained from the cardholders during the inspection, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 cancelling the petitioner‟s authorization. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that admittedly, basing on a complaint received from the cardholders of Kagallu Village, the Tahsildar submitted a report to the 2nd respondent recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Basing upon which, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 03.11.2025 duly framing four charges as against the petitioner, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.11.2025. 5. Though the impugned proceedings refer to statements of cardholders said to have been obtained on 05.11.2025, the names of the cardholders who were examined are not mentioned therein, nor were copies of the statements of the cardholders furnished to the petitioner. On the other hand, along with his explanation dated 10.11.2025, the petitioner submitted statements of nearly 83 cardholders stating that he is residing in the Kaggalu Village and is 5 VS,J W.P.No.34133 of 2025 distributing essential commodities as per the prescribed timings and weighments. However, the cancellation proceedings dated 29.11.2025 were issued by the 2nd respondent solely basing on the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, which is, in fact, a major penalty and which cannot be imposed without conducting an appropriate enquiry as required under law. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court refers to the decision in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court held: “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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.34133 of 2025 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.” 7. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned cancellation order issued by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable, as it was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard, as required under law. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 29.11.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry, duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 10.11.2025 and the statements furnished by him on the same date pertaining to the cardholders. 7 VS,J W.P.No.34133 of 2025 The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 08.12.2025 KGR