APHC010594172022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 35849/2022 Between: 1. BOYA SURESH, S/O B.BALAVARTHI, AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O H.NO.8-43, SUNKULAMMA STREET, KODUMUR TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KODUMUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the cancellation proceedings vide Rc.DT(LR)47/2019, dated 21-09- 2022, the petitioner's dealership to the Fair Price Shop No.1319006, of Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, without any valid ground, as 2 VS,J W.P.No.35849 of 2022 illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Control orders and consequently set aside the same, in the interests of justice, 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 pleased to direct the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.1319006, of Kodumur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District, by suspending the cancellation proceedings vide Rc.DT(LR)47/2019, dated 21-09¬2022, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dt: 04- 11-2022 passed in IA.No.1/2022 in WP.No.35849/2022 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. U RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.35849 of 2022 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.35849 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the cancellation proceedings vide Rc.DT(LR)47/2019, dated 21-09- 2022, the petitioner's dealership to the Fair Price Shop No.1319006, of Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, without any valid ground, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Control orders and consequently set aside the same…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer on 07.03.2018 for Shop No.1319006 of Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been supplying Essential Commodities to the cardholders without there being any remarks. 3. While the things stood thus, on 06.11.2019, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Gudur, conducted an inspection over the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop and found no variation in the stocks. Later, another inspection was conducted alleging that MGM rice (-228) kgs and MDM RG Dal (-48kgs) were less in the ground balance as per the EPOs calculation. 4. Basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 12.09.2022 calling for an explanation from the petitioner. For which, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 17.09.2022. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, vide impugned 4 VS,J W.P.No.35849 of 2022 proceedings dated 21.09.2022, cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that no independent enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent except merely referring to the report submitted by the 4th respondent. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 04.11.2022, this Court duly considering the settled legal principle that the disciplinary authority, while passing the final order, shall record reasons, and accordingly granted an interim order directing the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop No.1319006 of Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, by suspending the cancellation proceedings vide Rc.DT(LR)47/2019, dated 21.09.2022. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 7. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is an admitted fact that except referring to the issuance of show cause notice and the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 17.09.2022, there is no reference as to whether any notice was given to the petitioner for conducting any independent enquiry. Petitioner‟s authorization was cancelled solely basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, who recommended action against the petitioner, except that no proper reasons were assigned while passing the impugned order. 8. It appears that the impugned order cancelling the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the 5 VS,J W.P.No.35849 of 2022 back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-Clause(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. This Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others 1 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 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.35849 of 2022 enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the 3rd respondent were issued without considering the explanation of the petitioner. No reasons were assigned and no enquiry was conducted on the objections and contentions raised in the explanation, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others2, 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.” 10. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 7 VS,J W.P.No.35849 of 2022 shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry. 11. 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. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.09.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent is set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to record reasons thereof. It is need less to state that the respondents shall restore the authorization of the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop bearing No.1319006 of Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District till finalization of proceedings, if an enquiry is conducted afresh. 8 VS,J W.P.No.35849 of 2022 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :01.12.2025 JLV 9 VS,J W.P.No.35849 of 2022 281 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 35849/2022 Date :01.12.2025 JLV