APHC010691722025 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: 35446/2025 Between: 1. BOYA HUSSAINI @ K CHINNA USENI, DEALER OF F.P. SHOP NO. 1302043, CHINNABHOOM PALLI VILLAGE, S/O. BOYA NARASIMHULU, AGED.33 YEARS, R/O.CHINNA BHOOM PALLI VILLAGE, KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAWATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP. 3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR/R D O, ADONI, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOSGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP. ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the R-4 in Suspending the authorization of the FP shop of the Petitioner vide proc in Rc.M.2014/2025, Dt.30-11-2025, is liable to be set aside as unjust and illegal, contrary to well established principles of law, without jurisdiction violative of principles of 2 VS,J W.P.No.35446 of 2025 natural justice, violative of Art 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, violative of the provisions of Civil Supplies Act, and by consequently direct the Respondents herein to allot the stock continuously forthwith, and to 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 Direct the respondents herein to allot stock to the F.P. Shop No. 1302043 of China Bhompalli village of Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District forthwith, by suspending the Proc. in Rc.M.2014/2025, Dt.30- 11-2025, pending Disposal of this‟W.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.35446 of 2025 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.35446 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the R-4 in Suspending the authorization of the FP shop of the Petitioner vide proc in Rc.M.2014/2025, Dt.30-11-2025, is liable to be set aside as unjust and illegal, contrary to well established principles of law, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Art 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, violative of the provisions of Civil Supplies Act, and by consequently direct the Respondents herein to allot the stock continuously forthwith…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.1302043 of China Bhompalli Village of Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District, in the year 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner‟s authorization has been renewed from time to time. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from any quarter. 3. While things stood thus, basing upon a report submitted by the 4th respondent alleging that, on a complaint made by the villagers, the petitioner had contested in the Panchayat elections and was elected as Sarpanch and is receiving a monthly honorarium from the Government and, despite the same, he was continuing as a Fair Price Shop Dealer and also that an inspection was conducted and certain irregularities were alleged to have been found. Accordingly, basing upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar on 22.09.2025, 4 VS,J W.P.No.35446 of 2025 a show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.09.2025, duly framing eight charges as against the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. However, the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and solely basing upon the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the petitioner‟s authorization has been placed under suspension pending enquiry. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that, in pursuance of the impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2025, temporary arrangements have been made by handing over the said Fair Price Shop to the concerned Village Revenue Assistant. 6. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2025, it can be observed that though the report of the 4th respondent is only with regard to the fact that the petitioner had contested in the Panchayat elections and was elected as a Sarpanch and that, in spite of the same, he was continuing as a Fair Price Shop Dealer, it appears that without even inspecting the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop, variations and irregularities were identified and eight charges were framed against the petitioner, which are in no way connected with the report submitted by the 4th respondent. It is also a fact that the impugned 5 VS,J W.P.No.35446 of 2025 proceedings suspending the petitioner‟s authorization were passed solely basing upon the report of the 4th respondent without there being any inspection of the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop. It can also be observed that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to each and every charge, though referred to in the impugned order, were not considered by assigning reasons. 7. It appears that the impugned order cancelling the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-Clause (5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, which has been held to be mandatory by this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, as observed and extracted hereunder: “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, 1 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.35446 of 2025 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 enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the 3rd respondent were passed without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, without assigning reasons and without conducting any enquiry in relation to the objections and contentions raised in the explanation, which is against the 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 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 7 VS,J W.P.No.35446 of 2025 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.” 9. 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 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. 10. 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, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.11.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for 8 VS,J W.P.No.35446 of 2025 conducting a fresh enquiry in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and by recording reasons thereof. It is needless to state that the 3rd respondent is directed to continue the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop dealer and supply essential commodities to the subject fair price shop. The respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law, if they find any irregularities in continuing the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :22.12.2025 JLV 9 VS,J W.P.No.35446 of 2025 191 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 35446/2025 Date :22.12.2025 JLV