APHC010235482022 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: 13856/2022 Between: 1. SMT. G.NAGARTHNAMMA,, W/O S.HAUSSAIN PEERA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1261011 OF AMARAPURAM, R/O AMARAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT., ANANTHAPUR. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR 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, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.2924/2020/C dated 25.04.2022 by in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner Shop No.1261011 at Amarapuram of Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District without there being 2 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequentially set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of F.P. Shop No.1261011 at Amarapuram of Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District and 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 suspend the proceedings of 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.2924/2020/C dated 25.04.2022 by directing the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner's Shop No.1261011 at Amarapuram of Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District, pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.13856 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 a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.2924/2020/C dated 25.04.2022 by in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership held by the petitioner Shop No.1261011 at Amarapuram of Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, and without following any procedure under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequentially set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of F.P. Shop No.1261011 at Amarapuram of Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1261011 of Amarapuram of Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District about 20 years back prior to filing of the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner‟s authorization has been extended from time to time and the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from any corner. 3. While the things stood thus, the inspecting authorities inspected the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop on 03.03.2020 and found certain variations. Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar i.e., the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has issued a show-cause notice and 4 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 suspended the petitioner‟s authorization on the same day i.e., on 12.12.2020. Challenging which, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.2946 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.12.2021 directing the 3rd respondent to pass final orders by conducting the enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), 2018 as well as law laid down in the case of B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. 4. After disposal of the said writ petition, the 3rd respondent again issued a notice on 07.03.2022. For which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 04.04.2022 to the charges framed as against the petitioner and requested the 3rd respondent to drop all the charges and to permit distribution of essential commodities in the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop. The 3rd respondent, without appreciating the facts on record and even without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, straight away cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2022. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 06.05.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim order:- “As the allegations made against the petitioner are trivial, there shall be interim order as prayed for.” 5 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 6. In pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is being continued as a Fair Price Shop dealer till date. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 8. On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2022, it is an admitted fact that after disposal of W.P.No.2946 of 2021, notices were given to the petitioner calling for an explanation, for which the petitioner has submitted an explanation through her counsel on 01.03.2022. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent basing upon a report submitted by the Tahsildar on 07.03.2022, cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization even without conducting an independent enquiry as required under the Control Order. Even the impugned proceedings do not state as to whether the 3rd respondent conducted any enquiry independently, except referring to the report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Amarapuramu, stating that the petitioner has not given sworn statement and that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is unbelievable and that the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) has recommended that disciplinary action may be initiated against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent, duly taking into consideration the report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Amarapuramu, has straight away cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization without conducting any independent enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.2946 of 2021. 6 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 9. 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, wherein it was observed as under: “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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 7 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 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.” 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the 3rd respondent is without considering the explanation of the petitioner and no reasons were assigned and no enquiry was conducted 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 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.” 11. 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 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 8 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 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. 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, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 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.1261011 of 9 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 Amarapuram of Amarapuram Mandal, Anantapur District till finalization of proceedings, if an enquiry is conducted afresh. 14. 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 10 VS,J W.P.No.13856 of 2022 230 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 13856/2022 Date :01.12.2025 JLV