1 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 APHC010636862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 33161/2025 Between: 1. KATTA VENKATA RAMANAIAH, , S/O.V ENKAIAH F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 5, K ATTAVARIPALEM V ILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM D ISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE . 3. THE COLLECT RC S, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM D ISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KONDIPI, PRAKASAM D ISTRICT 6. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, SINGARAYKONDA 7. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORVIGILANCE, CIVIL SUPPLIES, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 8. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL SUPPLIES D EPORTMENT, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DIST 9. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM 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 an appropriate order, direction or Writ m ore particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of Respondent No.4, dt. 1 6-5-2025 in Rc. 1/3446/2024, who canceled the autom ation of petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Honble High Court and also against the m andatory provision of Control Order, and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and withoutgiven opportunity to petitioner and consequently set-a side the proceedings of 4th respondent, d t.16-5 -2 0 2 5 in R c.1/3446/2024, 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 pleased to stay the impugned orders, dt. 16-5-2025 in Rc.l/3446/2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “to issue an appropriate order, direction or Writ m ore particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of Respondent No.4, dt. 1 6-5-2025 in Rc. 1/3446/2024, who canceled the autom ation of petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Honble High Court and also against the m andatory provision of Control Order, and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and withoutgiven opportunity to petitioner and consequently set-a side the proceedings of 4th respondent, d t.16-5 -2 0 2 5 in R c.1/3446/2024, and pass” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed initially as a temporary fair price shop dealer of shop No.5 of Kattavaripalem village, Kondepi mandal, Prakasam district in the year 2004 and subsequently, his post was regularized in the year 2009 and ever since, he has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, basing on a complaint made by few villagers to the Minster of Social Welfare, Disabled & Senior Citizen Welfare, Sachivalayam & Village Volunteer, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 06.07.2024 alleging that the petitioner is diverting the PDS rice to the black market and that he is running the subject fair price shop without requisite 4 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 educational qualifications. The 6th respondent inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and is said to have found no variation in the stock and a report was submitted accordingly on 10.07.2024. Subsequently, on 12.07.2024, the 7th respondent inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and submitted a report to the 3rd respondent. Basing on the report submitted by the 6th respondent on 06.07.2024, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 28.09.2024, directing to appear before the 2nd respondent. The said notice dated 28.09.2024 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.23493 of 2024, wherein, on 21.10.2024, this Court has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the notice dated 28.09.2024 on the ground that the appellate authority cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings against errant fair price shop dealer without there being any proceedings taken up by the appointing authority. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 21.10.2024, vide proceedings dated 26.12.2024, the 4th respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization over the subject fair price shop as an interim measure, pending finalization of enquiry. The said proceedings were challenged before this Court in W.P.No.31376 of 2024, which was allowed on 23.09.2025 by setting aside the proceedings dated 26.12.2024 keeping in view the fact that the period of 90 days for completing the enquiry is lapsed. Further, the 4th respondent was directed to complete the enquiry against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 5 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 5. Pursuant to the aforementioned order passed by this Court, the 4th respondent, vide proceedings dated 22.10.2025, restored the petitioner’s authorization over the subject fair price shop. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings dated 16.05.2025, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner was passed behind the petitioner and the same were not served on him. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent officials have not brought the cancellation proceedings dated 16.05.2025 to the notice of this Court on 23.09.2025, while this Court was allowing W.P.No.31376 of 2024. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Heard Sri. Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. It can be observed that basing on a complaint was submitted by the villagers of Kattavaripalem of Kondapi mandal to the Minster for Social Welfare, Disabled and Senior Citizen Welfare, Sachivalayam and Village Volunteer, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 06.07.2024, alleging that the petitioner herein is diverting the PDS rice into black market and that he collects PDS rice from other dealers and sells the same into black market, and that the petitioner having studied only 6th standard, is illegally running fair price shop as if he studied 7th standard; the respondent Nos.3 and 7 were directed to conduct an enquiry. 6 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 8. After conducting the enquiry, the 7th respondent submitted his report dated 16.08.2024 to the 3rd respondent stating as under: “…As seen from the selection process of the said F.P.Shop Dealer, the norms specified as per Clause 5(1)(b) of the G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.12.2008 seems to be not fulfilled and need to reviewed by the Appellate Authority cum Joint Collector. 11. Upon enquiry, it was found that the file regarding the educational qualifications of the FP Shop dealer has already been processed in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur at the time of his appointment. The Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority for the appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers and the Joint Collector is the Appellate Authority on the said appointments. Hence, it is requested that the case be transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, for retrieval of the said file from the Office of the RDO, Kandukur for submission of verification report on the academic qualifications of the F.P. Shop Dealer to the District Collector, Prakasam for further enquiry into this matter.” 9. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a notice on 28.09.2024 directing the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent on 05.10.2024, which was challenged in W.P.No.23493 of 2024, which was allowed on 21.10.2024 and the operative portion of the said order reads as under: “In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 28.09.2024, issued vide Rc.CS3/94/2024 is set-aside. This order does not preclude the respondent authorities from making verification of the educational qualification of the petitioner from the concerned.” 10. Thereafter, the 4th respondent was directed to conduct enquiry in the subject matter and in the said process, the 9th respondent has reported that 7 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 the Mandal Educational Officer, Kondapi, after verifying the genuineness of the transfer certificate No.673177 dated 19.06.2004 of the petitioner herein, found that the same is not genuine. Basing on the report of the 9th respondent, the 4th respondent reported to the 3rd respondent that the petitioner herein has produced a fake transfer certificate and got selected as a fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop by cheating the Government which is in violation of Guideline No.5 of Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.4, CA, F&CS (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011. Pursuant to the same, the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent to take necessary action against the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 29.04.2025 whereby, he was directed to appear before the 4th respondent on 08.05.2025. 11. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 29.04.2025 would go to show that no charge was framed against the petitioner except stating that the petitioner has produced fake transfer certificate during the process of recruitment. The entire show cause notice is silent and does not specify the charge intended to be framed against the petitioner. Without framing any charge against him, the petitioner was directed to appear before the 4th respondent for submitting explanation. In spite of the same, the petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent on 08.05.2025 and submitted his explanation duly explaining his grievance. Subsequently, on 16.05.2025, the 4th respondent, passed the impugned proceedings cancelling the authorization 8 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 of the petitioner as he has no requisite qualifications to function as a fair price shop dealer. In the said proceedings, the 4th respondent has stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing, but, the reasons over his dissatisfaction over the explanation dated 08.05.2025 were not mentioned, which is against the principle of law laid down in K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others1, wherein it was observed as under: “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.” 12. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner. 1 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 9 VS,J WP.No.33161 of 2025 13. Even otherwise, issuing a show cause notice without framing any charge and expecting a reasonable and satisfactory explanation from the petitioner is ludicrous on the part of the 4th respondent. It is a well known principle that a notice must be given to the person before any adverse action is taken and such notice cannot be vague and ambiguous to the proposed action to be taken so as to apprise the authorities determinatively the cases he has to meet. In other words, the person concerned must be informed of the charges and allegations clearly against him so that he would be able to fully meet the allegations and defend himself. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 16.05.2025 and the show cause notice dated 29.04.2025 issued by the 4th respondent are hereby set-aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate further course of action afresh, against the petitioner, if they intend to do so, by duly following the procedure prescribed under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:22.12.2025 Gss