APHC010190252022 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: 11116/2022 Between: 1. N NAGAMANI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. F.P.SHOP DEALER, R/O GANTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, SAVALYAPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, C SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SAVALYAPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.712/2021-G dated 28- 03-2022 on the file of the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, as illegal, arbitrary and is violation of Principles of natural justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 VS,J W.P.No.11116 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 impugned order Rc.No.No.712/2021-G dated 28-03- 2022 on the file of the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.11116 of 2022 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.11116 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.712/2021-G dated 28-03-2022 on the file of the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, as illegal, arbitrary and is violation of Principles of natural justice…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of Shop No.0742007 of Gantavaripalem Village vide order Rc.No.4728/2010-B dated 12.09.2011. The petitioner‟s authorization has been renewed from time to time. The petitioner also submitted an application for renewal of his authorization by paying the necessary fee on 17.02.2022 vide challan No.50184862062021. 3. While things stood thus, the Civil Supplies Vigilance authorities inspected the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop on 25.02.2021, verified the stock position and, being satisfied that no irregularities were found, obtained the petitioner‟s signature on the inspection report. In the month of March, 2021, there was supply of 176 bags of rice to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop; however, there was a double entry of 176 bags in the computer system, which occurred by mistake. The said mistake occurred in various Fair Price Shops as well. Having identified the same, the petitioner informed the authorities 4 VS,J W.P.No.11116 of 2022 about the double entry in respect of supply of 176 bags to his shop. However, the same was not rectified. 4. While things stood thus, once again the Civil Supplies authorities inspected the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop on 24.03.2021 and, though the petitioner informed them about the double entry in respect of supply of 176 bags, the authorities took into consideration the double entry of 176 bags in the computer system as if there was supply of 352 bags of rice and accordingly conducted a panchanama in the presence of mediators and submitted a report to the Tahsildar. Basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, as the respondents stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop without there being either suspension or cancellation, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.9383 of 2021, which was disposed of on 06.05.2021 directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop. 6. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent passed suspension order dated 25.05.2021 suspending the authorization of the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11049 of 2021 and the same was disposed of on 02.11.2021 directing the 2nd respondent therein (Sub Collector) to complete the enquiry within two months and permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop pending disposal of the enquiry. In pursuance thereof, the 2nd respondent therein issued a notice on 5 VS,J W.P.No.11116 of 2022 07.03.2022 asking the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 26.03.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the office of the 2nd respondent on 26.03.2022, where she informed that they would call her again for enquiry. However, thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any further notice from the 2nd respondent and no enquiry was conducted. 7. While the things stood thus, the 2nd respondent in the present writ petition passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.712/2021-G dated 28.03.2022, cancelling the petitioner‟s authorization. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 8. When the present writ petition came up for admission on 20.04.2022, this Court passed the interim order suspending the impugned order dated 28.03.2022. 9. In pursuance of the interim order, the petitioner has been continuing to run the Fair Price Shop till date. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 11. On a perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the initial show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner specifically stated that there was an error in the e-POS machine and, because of the same, there was a double entry, which resulted in the variation found in the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop. However, the 2nd 6 VS,J W.P.No.11116 of 2022 respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without conducting an enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.11049 of 2021 dated 02.11.2021, suspended the petitioner‟s authorization. Even as per the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that except referring to the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 26.03.2021 and stating that the explanation is not believable, no reasons have been assigned and no enquiry has been conducted as to whether there was a double entry due to an error in the e-POS machine. 12. It appears that the impugned order in 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 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. 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 7 VS,J W.P.No.11116 of 2022 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.” 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the respondent No.3 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 2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755 8 VS,J W.P.No.11116 of 2022 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.” 14. 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. 15. 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 2nd respondent 9 VS,J W.P.No.11116 of 2022 has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Rc.No.712/2021-G dated 28.03.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and recording reasons thereof. It is needless to state that the respondents shall restore the authorization of the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop bearing No.0742007 of Gantavaripalem Village till finalization of the proceedings, if an enquiry is conducted afresh. 17. 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.11116 of 2022 311 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO:11116/2022 Date :01.12.2025 JLV