APHC010230772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 11816/2025 Between: 1. B A MANJULA DEVI, D/O.ANJANAPPA, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO. 1263010 R/O.D.NO,5-65, M.RAYAPURAM VILLAGE, ROLLA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE 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, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, ROLLA 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No. 1293/2025/C dated 22.04.2024 by terminating 2 VS,J W.P.No.11816 of 2025 the petitioner to hold F.P Shop.No.1263010, M.Rayapuram Village, Rolla Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop.No. 1263010, M.Rayapuram Village, Rolla Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District and 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 to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner‟s F.P Shop.No.1263010, M.Rayapuram Village, Rolla Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings of 4th respondent vide Rc.No.1293/2025/C dated 22.04.2024, pending disposal of Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to Vacate the Interim Order dated: 08.05.2025 passed in I.A.N0.1 OF 2025 in W.P. No.11816 of 2025 and 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.11816 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No. 1293/2025/C dated 22.04.2024 by terminating the petitioner to hold F.P Shop.No.1263010, M.Rayapuram Village, Rolla Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop.No. 1263010, M.Rayapuram Village, Rolla Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1263010 of Rolla mandal, Sri Satya Sai District erstwhile Anantapur district in the year 2019 on temporary basis. Ever since, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 05.03.2024, the 5th respondent along with other staff inspected the petitioner‟s fair price shop and found variation of (-)828 kilograms of Rice, (-)24 ½ packets of sugar, (-)1818 kilograms of ragi and (-)1818 kilograms of jowar, and seized the stock available in the petitioner‟s fair price shop and thereafter, the 4th respondent issued a show 4 VS,J W.P.No.11816 of 2025 cause notice to the petitioner on 11.03.2025 calling for an explanation, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted her explanation on 17.03.2025 which reads as under: “1) The reason for shortage of rice: The previous dealer did not given buffer stock and at MLS point as coolies drag by hook the some of the rice quantity was fell down. The weight of the rice bags would not count when the rice comes from MLS point to shop, so, for every month there is a variation of 2 to 3 kgs from every rice bag. Therefore, it is found that 828 Kgs of rice shortage and submitting my reply. 2) When comes to the sugar, at the time of inspection of CSDT the sugar quantity was correct and he recorded as there is only variation in rice. But in Panchanama he wrote there is shortage of sugar. In this way the CSDT recorded wrong statement. 3) When comes to Ragi and Jowar, I did not received Ragi and Jowar. The CSDT without checking the stock register allotment recorded as there is a shortage of Ragi and Jowar and also thinking to file a case on CSDT who recorded wrong statement. In this way I am submitting my explanation to your show cause notice.” 4. As the respondents stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner without there being any suspension or cancellation of the authorization, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.7385 of 2025 which was disposed of on 21.03.2025 directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner‟s fair price shop, however, with a liberty to the respondents to conduct enquiry and proceed further, in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the aforesaid order of this Court, the 4th respondent, without considering the 5 VS,J W.P.No.11816 of 2025 explanation submitted by the petitioner and without even conducting enquiry as directed by this Court, issued the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2024 terminating the petitioner herein for the alleged irregularities committed by her. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 08.05.2025, this Court passed the following interim order: “Since the impugned proceeding were issued without enquiry and as the same are issued in violation of principles of natural justice, there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2025, for a period of eight (8) weeks.” The said interim order was thereafter extended from time to time. 6. The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner‟s fair price shop is being supplied essential commodities and that the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop. It is further stated that the impugned proceedings are issued by the 4th respondent after duly following the procedure prescribed under the APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018 and that the same need not be interfered by this Court. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri. P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the entire material available on record. 6 VS,J W.P.No.11816 of 2025 8. Admittedly, the petitioner‟s fair price shop was inspected by the respondent officials on 05.03.2025 wherein a variation of (-)828 kilograms of Rice, (-)24 ½ packets of sugar, (-)1818 kilograms of ragi and (-)1818 kilograms of jowar was found by the respondent authorities. Based on the same, the 5th respondent submitted a report to the 4th respondent on 06.03.2025, basing on which, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 11.03.2025 framing two charges against her and sought for her explanation. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 17.03.2025 as referred supra. The 4th respondent, while referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, stated in the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2025 that the said explanation is not valid as panchanama has been conducted fairly in the presence of village elders and as such, the explanation of the petitioner may not be considered. 9. Except stating thus, the 4th respondent has not mentioned any other reason as to his dissatisfaction over the explanation submitted by the petitioner nor had stated regarding conducting of a detailed enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner and also on the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The action of the 4th respondent in terminating the petitioner without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without conducting an enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and against the law laid down in B. 7 VS,J W.P.No.11816 of 2025 Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1 wherein this Court, under similar circumstances 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 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 8 VS,J W.P.No.11816 of 2025 enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 10. When the petitioner had specifically contended in her explanation that though no variation was found in the stocks of sugar at the time of inspection, the said variation was mentioned in the panchanama, the 4th respondent ought to have conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter in order to establish truth or otherwise. Without doing so, the 4th respondent has straight away terminated the petitioner by holding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not valid, 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 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 9 VS,J W.P.No.11816 of 2025 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. 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 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings terminating the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 13. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2025 issued by the 4th respondent are hereby set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 4th respondent, for conducting fresh enquiry by issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner and by duly affording an opportunity, in accordance with law. The 4th respondent is further directed to complete the 10 VS,J W.P.No.11816 of 2025 enquiry within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to pass appropriate speaking orders thereof, in accordance with law. As the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1263010 of Rolla mandal, Sri Satya Sai District erstwhile Anantapur district even as on today on the strength of the interim order passed in this writ petition, the same shall be continued till finalization of the enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 05.11.2025 Gss