APHC010542622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28144/2025 Between: 1. BARRI ESWARAMMA, W/O LATE LAXMANA RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER, R/O. KUNDUVANIPETA VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. JOINT COLLECTOR CS, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, , SRIKAKULAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAMDISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 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 declaring the proceedings inRc.No.2004/2025 CS,dt. 30-09-2025 passed by the 3rd respondent thereby cancelled the authorization of the petitioners Fair Price Shop No.0119024 situated in Kunduvanipeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting enquiry, without considering my explanation dt. 26-08-2025, without furnishing the copy of report dt. 04-08-2025 and without recording reasons for cancellation of authorization, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 30-09-2025 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders and to 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 suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.2004/2025 CS, dt. 30-09- 2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0119024 situated in Kunduvanipeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders, pending disposal of main WritPetition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI 3 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is 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 declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.2004/2025 CS, dt.30-09-2025 passed by the 3rd respondent thereby cancelled the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0119024 situated in Kunduvanipeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting enquiry, without considering my explanation dt.26-08-2025, without furnishing the copy of report dt.04-08-2025 and without recording reasons for cancellation of authorization, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt.30-09-2025 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders...” 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that:- a. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for shop No.0119024 at Kunduvanipeta Village in the year 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner‟s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to cardholders, without any complaints from any corner. 5 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 b. While the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 12.08.2025 alleging that on receipt of reliable information, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, UDRI DSO Office, Srikakulam and Village Revenue Officer, Kanugulavanipet Village Secretariat Srikakulam Mandal conducted a surprise inspection on 04.08.2025 at 11A.M. During the course of inspection, it was found that one person, namely Smt. Cheedipalli Rajeswari W/o. Rambabu was available at fair price shop and doing business rather than the petitioner herein and also found certain variations in stock i.e., PMGKY Rice 33.50 Kgs and PDS Sugar 4 packets. Basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent dated 04.08.2025, three charges were framed against the petitioner, for which the petitioner has submitted a representation on 18.08.2025, requesting the respondent authorities to furnish a copy of Panchanama and other relevant documents basing on which, the said show cause notice was issued . 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even without furnishing a copy of relevant documents including panchanama and other documents and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also without assigning any 6 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 reasons for dissatisfaction the 3rd respondent has cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization by way of impugned proceedings dated 30.09.2025. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. On perusal of the representation dated 18.08.2025 made by the petitioner, it can be observed that the petitioner specifically requested the respondent authorities to furnish relevant documents, including the Panchanama and the 6A report, to enable him to respond effectively to the show cause notice. However the petitioner, in turn, submitted his explanation dated 26.08.2025, duly enclosing the relevant documents available with him. Despite this, the 3rd respondent, without assigning any reasons and solely basing on the reports submitted by the Tahsildar and the inspecting officials, even without conducting any enquiry as required under the (Control) Order, 2018 have cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization. This action is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on 7 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, is contrary to Sub-Clause(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 as held 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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 8 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 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.” 7. In view of the above, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2004/2025 CS, dated 30.09.2025, issued by the 3rd respondent, and remand the matter back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration. The 3rd respondent is hereby directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, calling for an enquiry and enclosing all the documents requested by the petitioner in his representation dated 18.08.2025. The petitioner shall submit a detailed explanation, specifically mentioning the names of the cardholders who left the commodities in the shop, so as to facilitate the 3rd respondent in examining those cardholders. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall conduct a detailed enquiry and pass a reasoned order. This entire 9 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 process shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 15.10.2025 LSP 10 VS,J W.P.NO.28144 OF 2025 260 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28144/2025 15.10.2025 LSP