APHC010240542021 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: 13869/2021 Between: 1. SMT.E.SWATHI, W/O A.SURENDRA, AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O H.NO.2/138A, CHANDRAPALLI VILAGLE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRIDCT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PEAPULLY MANDAL, PEAPULLY, KURNOOL 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3 respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide R.C.DT(LR)/418/2020 dated 28-5-2021 for cancellation of petitioner authorization of F.P.Shop No.1348026 of Chandrapalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of control order 2018 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner in F.P.Shop No.1348026 of Chandrapalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District and 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 pleased to suspend the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide R.C.DT (LR)/418/2020 dated 28-5-2021 for cancellation of authorization of F.P.Shop No.1348026 of Chandrapalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District, pending disposal of writ petition, 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 vacate the interim orders dated 19.07.2021 passed in W.P. No. 13869 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. U RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 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 impugned proceedings vide R.C.DT(LR)/418/2020 dated 28-5-2021 for cancellation of petitioner authorization of F.P.Shop No.1348026 of Chandrapalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of control order 2018 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner in F.P.Shop No.1348026 of Chandrapalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District and pass …” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer on permanent basis for shop bearing No.1348026, situated at Chandrapalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District. Later the respondent No.3 had issued authorization vide Lr.No.B.WROCS/3/2018, dated 11.04.2018, to run the shop and ever since, she has been supplying essential commodities to the card holders without any complaints from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, a sudden inspection was conducted at the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 04.07.2020 by the 4th respondent/the Tahsildar, Peapully Mandal, Peapully, Kurnool District. During the said inspection, it was alleged that there was a variation of 11Kgs of PDS rice, 49Kgs of R.G. Dal, 16 Kgs excess of Chana and deficiency of 11Kgs of Sugar on the ground balance and drafted a Panchanama and seized the commodities. Though the said variation is marginal and within the permissible limits prescribed under the control order, basing on the report submitted by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.3/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District has straightaway suspended the petitioner’s authorization by duly issuing a show cause notice dated 18.08.2020 to the petitioner, to which the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 25.08.2020, with a request to revoke the suspension of her authorization. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 without even considering the explanation submitted by her, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide Rc.DT(LR)/418/2020, dated 28-5-2021, even without conducting any enquiry as required under the Control Orders. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and requested this Court to direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner in Fair Price Shop No.1348026 of Chandrapalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. When the matter came up for admission on 19.07.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled without following the procedure contemplated under clause 8(4) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and no reasons much less valid reasons are mentioned in the impugned order.The petitioner has shown sufficient cause for grant of interim order.” 5. Heard Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 6. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of the proceedings issued by the respondent No.4/the Tahsildar, Peapully Mandal, Peapully, Nandyal District, vide Rc.A.355/2025, dated 20.09.2025, wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the interim order dated 19.07.2021, passed by this Court, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool has restored the petitioner’s authorization vide Proceedings in Rc.DT(LR)/418/2020, dated 04.08.2021 and the petitioner is continuing as Fair Price Shop Dealer. 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that admittedly no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents before passing the final orders. The respondent No.3 has simply relied upon the report submitted by the respondent No.4 and nowhere has assigned any reasons for to imposing the major penalty of cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. 8. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on the report which was submitted by the respondent No.4, 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 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 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 enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 9. The impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the respondent No.3 are also 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. 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 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 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, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings vide Rc.DT(LR)/418/2020, dated 28.5.2021, issued by the respondent No.3 is set-aside and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1348026 of Chandrapalli village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District, in pursuance of the restoration orders dated 04.08.2021. 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 :14.10.2025 SRT 213 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.13869 of 2021 Date: 14.10.2025 SRT