APHC010538852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28067/2025 Between: 1. KAPULURI VENKATA BABU RAO, S/O. NARAIAH F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.0854021, CHIMIDITHIPADU VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE 3. THE COLLECTOR CS, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, KANDUKUR, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT4. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, GUDLUR MANDAL, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANDUKUR. ...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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action the action of respondent/Sub Collector, Kandukur, SPS Nellore District, who the authorization of Petitioner in proceeding dt.27-9-2025 in Craft/380/2025, is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to 2 VS,J W.P.No.28067 of 2025 the spirit of Judgments of this Hon’ble High Court and also against the mandatory provision of Control Order, and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set-a side the proceedings of 4th respondent/Sub Collector, Kandukur, SPS Nellore District dt.27-9-2025 in Rc.F/380/2025 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop No 0854021, Chimididhipadu village, Gudlur Mandal, A.P. 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 stay the proceeding of impugned orders of 4th respondent/Sub-Collector, Kandukur, dt.27-9- 2025 in Rc.F/380/2025, 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 W.P.No.28067 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action the action of 4th respondent/Sub Collector, Kandukur, SPS Nellore District, who cancelled the authorization of Petitioner in proceeding dt.27-9-2025 in Craft/380/2025, is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Hon’ble High Court and also against the mandatory provision of Control Order, and also violate of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set-aside the proceedings of 4th respondent/Sub Collector, Kandukur, SPS Nellore District dt.27-9-2025 in Rc.F/380/2025 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, Shop No.0854021, Chimididhipadu village, Gudlur Mandal, SPS Nellore District, A.P. …” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer on 19.06.2004. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from the cardholders or the concerned authorities. b) While the matter being so, on 03.09.2025, the Civil Supplies Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukur/6th respondent herein inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and came to a conclusion that there was a shortage of 261 kgs PDS rice. Despite the petitioner’s request, the inspecting 4 VS,J W.P.No.28067 of 2025 officials seized the available stock on the same day without considering his explanation. c) Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by the 6th respondent, the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice in Rc.No.F/380/2025, dated 08.09.2025, calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of said show-cause notice and also an opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear personally on 16.09.2025 at about 11.00 a.m., for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.09.2025 and as well as appeared before the concerned authority i.e., the 4th respondent, on the said date. d) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, in spite of his detailed explanation requesting the concerned authorities to examine some of the neighbours of the Fair Price Shop as well as some of the cardholders attached to the Fair Price Shop to prove that the persons who are aged about 65 years, whose fingerprints were not recognized by the ePOS machine, and because of which there was variation in the said stock and also that he received rice bags from the MLS point with a shortage of half kg or one kg, the respondents without considering the same, have cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 VS,J W.P.No.28067 of 2025 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that except requesting the concerned authorities to examine some of the cardholders, the petitioner has not mentioned the names of the persons who were supposed to be examined, whose finger prints were not recognized by the ePOS machine, and in view of the same, the respondents did not examine any of the cardholders, which is neither illegal nor arbitrary and as such stated that the cancellation orders were passed in accordance with law and the same need not be interfered with. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that in pursuance of the inspection conducted on 03.09.2025, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.09.2025, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation on 16.09.2025, and thereafter an enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.09.2025, and after conducting due enquiry, the respondents have cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 27.09.2025. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation as to who are the cardholders whose fingerprints could not be recognized by the ePOS machine and because of which the said variation occurred during the time of inspection by the inspecting authorities. Admittedly, even on a perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has not mentioned the names of the said cardholders except requesting the concerned authorities to examine some of the cardholders attached to the Fair Price Shop. If at all the petitioner had mentioned the specific names of the cardholders and in spite of 6 VS,J W.P.No.28067 of 2025 the same if the respondents have failed to examine those cardholders, then the cancellation orders have been treated as without conducting a proper enquiry by examining the said cardholders. But, in the present case, the petitioner admittedly failed to mention the names of the cardholders, because of which the respondents could not examine them. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has stated that he is ready to give the names of the cardholders to prove that their fingerprints were not recognized by the ePOS machine as they were aged above 65 years, because of which such discrepancies occurred. 7. Taking into consideration the said request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in a lenient view, this Court feels it appropriate to remand the matter back to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.F/380/2025 dated 27.09.2025 passed by the 4th respondent. The matter is remanded back to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh explanation to the show-cause notice dated 08.09.2025, mentioning the details of the cardholders whose finger prints were not accepted by the ePOS machine, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receiving the fresh explanation from the petitioner, the 4th respondent shall conduct a detailed enquiry by duly examining the cardholders whose names are specifically mentioned in the explanation submitted by the 7 VS,J W.P.No.28067 of 2025 petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (2) months. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 14.10.2025 KGR