APHC010617652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32033/2025 Between: 1. BHEEMI REDDY SUHASINI, W/O BHEEMI REDDY RAM SWAROOP REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER, SHOP. NO. 1285100, R/O D. NO. 4-2-895-2, JANASAKTHI NAGAR, NEAR BALLARI ROAD, ANANTAPUR TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPURAMU DIVISION, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ANANTAPURAMU URBAN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU 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, Order, or Direction, declaring the action of the 2ND respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc. No. D1CS/398/2024 dated 27.10.2025, without conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as the FP Shop Dealer for Shop No. 1285100 situated at 2 VS,J W.P.No.32033 of 2025 Janashakthi Nagar, Anantapuramu Urban AND Mandal, Anantapuramu 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 to suspend the operation of proceedings issued by the 2ND respondent vide Rc. No. D1CS/398/2024 dated 27.10.2025, by continuing the petitioner as a FP Shop Dealer for Shop. No. 1285200 situated at Janashakthi Nagar, Anantapuramu Urban & Mandal, Anantapuramu District, pending the 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.32033 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 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.D1CS/398/2024 dated 27.10.2025, without conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as the FP Shop Dealer for Shop No.1285100 situated at Janashakthi Nagar, Anantapuramu Urban AND Mandal, Anantapuramu District….” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1285100 situated at Janashakthi Nagar, Anantapuramu Urban & Mandal, Anantapuramu District in the year 2009. The petitioner‟s authorization was renewed from time to time. b) While the things stood thus, the Tahsildar/3rd respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent on 06.05.2024 alleging that he had received a complaint from the villagers of the petitioner stating that on 05.05.2024, the petitioner has participated in political activities during the general elections of 2024. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued a suspension- cum-show-cause notice on the same day i.e., 06.05.2024 calling for an explanation from the petitioner and simultaneously suspended the petitioner‟s authorization. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6566 of 2025 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2025, 4 VS,J W.P.No.32033 of 2025 setting aside the suspension- cum-show-cause notice dated 06.05.2024 and directing restoration of the authorization of the petitioner and continuation of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer. However, this Court, left it open to the respondent authorities to take action in accordance with law by following due procedure of law. c) In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent once again issued a show-cause notice dated 06.10.2025 to the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted her explanation on 18.10.2025. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization vide proceedings dated 27.10.2025 by duly directing the 3rd respondent to make alternative arrangements for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders even without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the said impugned proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the impugned order was passed without conducting any enquiry as to whether the petitioner has participated in the election campaign on the alleged date or not. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 21.11.2025 directing the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu to appear before this Court, the 2nd respondent appeared today and submitted that an alternative arrangement has been made by handing over the Fair Price Shop 5 VS,J W.P.No.32033 of 2025 to the local V.R.A. for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders to avoid inconvenience to them. 5. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court observed that no enquiry was conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned proceedings dated 27.10.2025, and the 2nd respondent cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization solely on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, which admittedly is against 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.32033 of 2025 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 the light of the above discussion and having regard to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that, since a third-party interest has already been created and the impugned proceedings dated 27.10.2025 were passed without conducting enquiry as required under the Control Order, it is appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 27.10.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 27.10.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent. The matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry after issuing a fresh notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.11.2025 KGR