`APHC010244262021 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: 13945/2021 Between: 1. G. NALLA REDDY,, S/O. G. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. H.NO. 5-28, MARAMDODDI VILLAGE, C. BELAGAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS,FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL 3. THE COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, C. BELAGAL MANDAL, 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent vide Appeal case No. CS3/204/2020, dated 25.06.2021 by confirming the cancellation orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.CS3/62/2020, dated 30.06.2020 for cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 1305015 of Maramdoddi Village, C. Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents 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 operation of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.CS3/62/2020, dated 30.06.2020, consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Appeal case No. CS3/204/2020, dated 25.06.2021 by continuing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1305015 of Maramdoddi Village, C. Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAGA PHANINDRA 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent vide Appeal case No CS3/204/2020, dated 25.06.2021 by confirming the cancellation orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.CS3/62/2020, dated 30.06.2020 for cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1305015 of Maramdoddi Village, C.Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents 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.1305015, situated at Maramdoddi Village, C.Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District and ever since, he has been supplying essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, basing on the complaint made by the cardholders, the respondent officials have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found variation of 387(+) Kgs of rice, 24.61(+) Kgs of Sugar, 6.85(+) Kgs of Ragulu and 6.30(+) Kgs of R.G. Dal in the ground balance and subsequently, basing on a report submitted by the 4th respondent, the respondent No.2/the District Collector (CS), Kurnool District issued a show cause notice vide Rc.CS1/EC-18/2020, dated NIL.02.2020, and registered a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner had submitted his explanation, but, without considering the same and without even conducting an enquiry, solely relying on the report submitted by the respondent No.4/the Tahsildar, C.Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District, the 3rd respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner vide Proceedings in Rc.CS3/62/2020, dated 30.06.2020, which was also confirmed by the 2nd respondent in an appeal filed by the petitioner, vide orders dated 25.06.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. When the matter came up for admission on 22.07.2021, this Court has passed an interim order by suspending the operation of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.CS3/62/2020, dated 30.06.2020 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Appeal Case No.CS3/204/2020, dated 25.06.2021, by continuing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No.1305015 of Maramdoddi Village, C.Belalgal Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri K.Naga Phanindra, 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 Joint Collector, Kurnool, vide CS3/204/2020, dated 12.09.2025, wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the interim order dated 22.07.2021, passed by this Court, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool has restored the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop vide Proceedings in Rc.DT(LR)/112/2020, dated 04.08.2021 and that the petitioner is being continued as Fair Price Shop Dealer even as on today. 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that without there being an independent enquiry, only relying upon the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, the cancellation orders dated 30.06.2021 were passed, which was further confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 25.06.2021, which is against the principle of law laid down 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 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. 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 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. It can also be seen that the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 30.06.2020 without even considering the explanation submitted by 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.” 10. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 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.CS3/62/2020, dated 30.06.2020, issued by the respondent No.3 and as well as the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 25.06.2021, confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent are set-aside and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.1305015 of Maramdoddi Village, C.Belagal 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 153 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.13945 of 2021 Date: 14.10.2025 SRT