1 APHC010137792021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7936/2021 Between: 1. K.CHANDRA SEKHAR,, S/O.K.KARIBASAIAH, AGE-57 YEARS, OCC- F.P.SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.1204018, R/O.D.NO.8-43, CHABALA VILLAGE, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the petitioner's F.P.Shop authorization of Shop No.1204018 of Chabala Village of Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District vide proceedings Rc.No .D1 C S/2108/2020 dt-23-01-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, in 2 violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to release the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P. Shop No.1204018 of Chabala Village of Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District to enable the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holders by setting aside the proceedings Rc.No.D1CS/2108/2020 dt-23-01-2021 of the 3rd respondent in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 may pleased to suspend the proceedings Rc.No.D1CS/2108/2020 dt-23-01- 2021 of the 3rd respondent in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 implead the petitioner as 5th respondent in Writ Petition No. 7936 of 2021 includingin the miscellaneous petitions and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2021 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 dated 08-07-2021 passed in WP. 7936/2021 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N PREMRAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the petitioner's F.P.Shop authorization of Shop No.1204018 of Chabala Village of Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District vide proceedings Rc.No .D1 C S/2108/2020 dt-23-01-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to release the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P. Shop No.1204018 of Chabala Village of Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District to enable the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holders by setting aside the proceedings Rc.No.D1CS/2108/2020 dt-23-01-2021 of the 3rd respondent in the interest of justice and to pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1204018 of Chabala village, Vajrakarur mandal, Anantapur district on 25.04.1990 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, the petitioner‟s fair price shop was inspected by the respondent officials on 03.09.2019 and having found variations of 69.79 quintals of rice, 227 kilograms of sugar, the respondent officials have seized the stock available in the shop along with the e-pass weighing machine. Subsequently, the Tahsildar has submitted his report to the 2nd respondent, basing on which, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.10.2019 framing two charges. Pursuant to the same, the 4 petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.10.2019, without considering the same and without conducting any enquiry, the 2nd respondent has straightaway cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization of the fair price shop, vide impugned proceedings dated 06.03.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 08.07.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent is suspended while directing the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner and supply the essential commodities to the petitioner‟s fair price shop to distribute the same to the card holders.” 5. Heard Sri. N. Premraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced a copy of instructions of the Tahsildar (FAC), Vajrakaruru mandal, Ananthapuramu district wherein it is stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 08.07.2021, the petitioner‟s fair price shop is being supplied essential commodities for distribution of the same to the card holders. He further furnished a copy of proceedings dated 01.07.2025, through which the petitioner‟s authorization of the fair price shop No.1204018 of Chabala village, Vajrakarur mandal, Anantapur district was restored. 7. Admittedly, a perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the same is passed without conducting proper enquiry and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of A.P. State Targeted 5 Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Further it 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 others 1 observed as 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, 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 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. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent is hereby set-aside. Further, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of No.1204018 of Chabala village, Vajrakarur mandal, Anantapur district until and unless he is found at fault, in any other instance. 9. 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:08.10.2025. Gss