APHC010114042022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7123/2022 Between: 1. SMT.A.KOMALA, W/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGE35 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1047010, GMR PURAM VILLAGE, S.R.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DIST., AT CHITTOOR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, S.R.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent Roc.B1/1011/2022 dt9- 2-2022 cancelling my authorization for the FP Shop FP Shop No.1047010, GMR Puram Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State 2 VS,J W.P.No.7123 of 2022 Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order dt 9-2-2022 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual 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 to Suspend the operation of the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.B1/1011/2022 dt:9-2-2022 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner for the FP Shop FP Shop No.1047010, GMR Puram Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor Dist., by continuing the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 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 vacate the interim order dated 15.06.2022 granted in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W. P. No. 7123 of 2022 and dismiss the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.7123 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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent Roc.B1/1011/2022 dt: 9-2-2022 cancelling petitioner’s authorization for the FP Shop No.1047010, GMR Puram Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order dt 9-2-2022 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual…..” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1047010, G.M.R Puram Village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner’s authorization is valid up to 31.03.2021. The petitioner has also paid renewal fee on 15.03.2021 and submitted the original authorization to the authorized officer through the 4th respondent. 3. While so, on 21.12.2021 at about 11.30 a.m., the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar along with the Additional Revenue Inspector has inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and found certain variations with book balance and ground stock. The alleged variations are Rice 4 VS,J W.P.No.7123 of 2022 (PMGKAY-Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana Rice) 1245 Kgs less(-); (PDS Rice) 1207 Kgs excess (+). Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar on 21.12.2021 for initiating 6-A proceedings, the 3rd respondent issued a Show-Cause Notice on 20.01.2022 calling for an explanation from the petitioner, for which, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 02.02.2022. Thereafter, without conducting any enquiry as required under the Control Order, the petitioner’s authorization was straightaway cancelled on 09.02.2022. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 15.06.2022, this Court passed the Interim Order suspending the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.B1/1011/2022 dated 09-02-2022. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit duly reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner and also admitted in the counter affidavit that the Tahsildar, S.R. Puram has submitted original 6-A report to the Joint Collector and the same was submitted to the 3rd respondent along with inspection report of Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Additional Revenue Inspector, S.R Puram and village Revenue Officer, G.M.R. Puram. On receipt of a copy of the 6-A report, the 3rd respondent issued a Show- 5 VS,J W.P.No.7123 of 2022 Cause Notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner on 20.01.2022 and after receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, final action was initiated as per the rules. It is further stated that the impugned cancellation orders were passed after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 02.02.2022 and as such there is no deviation from the rules, and requested this Court to vacate the Interim Order dated 15.06.2022 as well as dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 09.02.2022, it can be observed that the 3rd respondent issued the Show-Cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner on 20.01.2022 basing upon a 6-A report submitted by the Tahsildar on 03.02.2021 and thereafter the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled in pursuance of the explanation submitted by the petitioner without even conducting any enquiry as required under the Control Order. However, as the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is 6-A report submitted by the Tahsildar, this Court is of the opinion that the same cannot be considered by the 3rd respondent for initiating disciplinary proceedings. 8. Admittedly, the Tahsildar has to place two separate reports, one under 6-A submitted to the Joint Collector and another to the 3rd respondent for initiating disciplinary proceedings, if any, required against the dealer. But in the present case sole basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings is the 6-A report of the Tahsildar submitted to the Joint 6 VS,J W.P.No.7123 of 2022 Collector, which fact was also admitted by the 3rd respondent in his counter. Therefore, the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 08.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.500 of 2020. 9. This Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020, had an occasion to deal with a case where disciplinary action was sought to be initiated against the Fair Price Shop dealer basing on the 6-A proceedings, without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, similar to the present case. While examining the requirement under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018, this Court, by order dated 08.01.2020, allowed W.P.No.500 of 2020 and the relevant paragraphs of the said order are as under: “7. …..In view of specific contention, it is necessary to advert to Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, and the same is extracted hereunder: “The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer 7 VS,J W.P.No.7123 of 2022 under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions and authorization.” It appears from Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, two separate reports are required to be submitted by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. 9. When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C. Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018.” ….Hence, I find that passing order, based on the report filed by Tahsildar, Santhabommali for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C. Act as well as initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is a serious illegality and contrary to Control Order, 2018.” 10. In the instant case also, it is evident from the impugned proceedings that, based on the 6-A proceedings under Section E.C. Act, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled. Thus, in the absence of a separate report, as required to be filed by the inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner in terms of Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018, issuance of the impugned proceedings cancelling the authorization of the petitioner is unjustified. 8 VS,J W.P.No.7123 of 2022 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :17.11.2025. KGR