APHC010438242025 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: 22410/2025 Between: 1. S SWETHA, W/O. S.VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY,RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO.2-17, GARLADINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1348046, GARLEDINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. 2. S.VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY,, S/O. S.VENUGOPAL REDDY RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO.2-17, GARLADINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. NOMINEE DEALER OF THE FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1348046, GARLEDINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, NANDHYAL DISTRICT, NANDHAYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE NANDHYAL DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PEAPULLY MANDAL NANDHAYAL DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, PEAPULLY MANDAL, 2 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 NANDHAYAL DISTRICT. 6. SMT METTU SRILATHA, W/O. M.JAGSDISHWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. CURRENTLY APPOINTED AS THE FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. GARLADINNE VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDHYALA 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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring assailing the proceedings in Rc.CS.369/2024, dated 24.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 and the consequential proceedings affirming the orders in Appeal Case No.CS2/38/2025, dated 25.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 in the appeal as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and reinstate the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to continue the Petitioner as the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Rc.CS.369/2024, dated 24.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 and the consequential proceedings affirming the orders in Appeal Case No.CS2/38/2025, dated 25.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.22410 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring assailing the proceedings in Rc.CS.369/2024, dated 24.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 and the consequential proceedings affirming the orders in Appeal Case No.CS2/38/2025, dated 25.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 in the appeal as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and reinstate the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer and pass such….” 2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner and was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer of shop No.1348046 situated in Garladinne village, H/o. Madhavaram village, Peapully mandal, Dhone division in the year 2020 vide proceedings in Rc.B.156/2019, dated 16.12.2020 and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders ever since, without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 09.08.2024, the 5th respondent inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain variations in the stock ((-) 987 kilograms of PDS rice). As such, the 5th respondent recommended to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner herein. 5 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 Accordingly, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.08.2024 suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry, aggrieved by which, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19677 of 2024 wherein, this Court has passed the following order on 09.12.2024: “10. Under these circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to expeditiously conduct the enquiry by following due procedure of law and principles of natural justice by providing the 1st petitioner opportunity enough to participate in the enquiry, by examining the witnesses, if necessary, and complete the enquiry within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the proceedings vide Rc.CS.369/2024, dated 16.08.2024, issued by the 3rd respondent shall stand set aside. Till such time, the authorization of the 1st petitioner as fair price shop dealer shall be continued as usual.” 4. Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 16.12.2024 seeking an explanation as to why the authorization issued in favour of the petitioner shall not be cancelled, to which the petitioner submitted her explanation on 21.12.2024 denying the allegations leveled against the petitioner and by stating that though the inspecting officials inspected the fair price shop, no statement was recorded in the presence of the petitioner and that the no signatures were taken by the inspecting officials. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings in Rc.No.CS/369/2024, dated 24.12.2024 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner challenging which the petitioner filed W.P.No.31098 of 2024 wherein, this Court passed the following order on 28.12.2024: 6 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 “7. Be that as it may, considering the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to approach the District Collector by invoking clause 24 of the order referred above. Pending appeal before the District Collector, the impugned proceedings, dt.24.12.2024 shall be stayed.” 5. The said order was challenged by the 6th respondent herein, who was appointed as the fair price shop dealer of the subject fair price shop on temporary basis, by way of an appeal in W.A.No.1078 of 2024 wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed the following judgment on 21.01.2025: “8. We, therefore, modify the judgment and order impugned to the extent that while the petitioners (respondents 1 & 2 herein) may prefer an appeal before the District Collector in terms of Clause 24 of the Control Order of 2018, the petitioners would be at liberty to proceed to prefer an application in terms of Clause 24(d), if so advised, which would be considered on its own merit by the District Collector. In case any such application is filed, the same may be disposed of not later than six weeks from today. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it would be open to the District Collector to pass such orders as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 6. In pursuance of the said judgment, the petitioner No.1 approached 2nd respondent by filing an appeal in CS2/38/2025 challenging the order of the 3rd respondent in Rc.CS/369/2024, dated 24.12.2024. The 2nd respondent, by way of the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 dismissed the appeal by upholding the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.CS/369/2024, dated 7 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 24.12.2024. Challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the present petition is filed. 7. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit duly reiterating the chain of events that took place right from the inspection of the petitioners’ fair price shop till passing of the impugned order Appeal Case No.CS2/38/2025, dated 25.07.2025 confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.CS.369/2024, dated 24.12.2024, whereby the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled. It is further stated that any person aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority may file a Revision before the District Collector and if such person is aggrieved by the orders of the 1st revisionary authority may file a revision before the Government as per amended clause 24(e) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard Sri. P. Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the entire material available on record. 9. Admittedly, on credible information, the 5th respondent visited the petitioner’s fair price shop on 09.08.2024 for inspection, where, the 2nd petitioner, being the nominee of the fair price shop dealer was present; upon inspection, the inspecting officials found variation of (-)987 kilograms of PDS rice when compared to the ground stock; when the 2nd petitioner was questioned regarding the said variation, as there was no proper response, the 8 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 ePoS machine and weighing machine available in the petitioners’ fair price shop were seized under a panchanama dated 09.08.2024. Accordingly, the 5th respondent submitted a seizure report to the 4th respondent who in turn submitted a report to the 3rd respondent vide Rc.B.172/2024, dated 12.08.2024 basing on which the petitioners’ authorization was suspended vide proceedings in Rc.CS.369/2024, dated 16.08.2024 by the 3rd respondent. 10. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19677 of 2024 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2024 with a direction to the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry by duly following the procedure contemplated under law and with a further direction to continue the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer of the subject shop, till completion of such enquiry. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners’ authorization was restored by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 13.09.2024 and thereafter, a notice dated 16.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner directing to attend enquiry on 21.12.2024; accordingly, the petitioner attended the enquiry and requested to issue statements of the cardholders, if any. During the course of hearing, the 4th and 5th respondents reiterated the chronology of events that led to the seizure and reiterated the contents of panchanama dated 09.08.2024 and the seizure report. After completion of enquiry, the petitioners’ authorization was cancelled vide the proceeding of the 3rd respondent dated 24.12.2024 on the ground that the variation of 9.87 9 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 quintals of fortified rice found during the inspection is beyond the permissible limit of 1.5%. 11. Subsequently, vide proceedings dated 26.12.2024, the 6th respondent herein was appointed in the place of the petitioner on temporary basis. Challenging the cancellation proceedings dated 24.12.2024, the petitioners filed W.P.No.31098 of 2024 which was disposed of on 28.12.2024 with direction to the petitioner to approach the District Collector by invoking Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Pursuant to the order dated 28.12.2024, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent under clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018; in the said appeal, the 2nd respondent, after taking into consideration the rival contentions has dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of cancellation issued by the 3rd respondent on 24.12.2024. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by the 3rd respondent during the course of enquiry and by the 2nd respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner. But, undisputedly, the petitioner sought for a copy of the panchanama dated 09.08.2024 and as well as the seizure report, alleged to be prepared on the date of inspection, but, she was denied the same. In K. Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad 10 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 and Ors1., it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case effectively. It was further held that the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfil the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show-cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. The said legal principle was also reiterated in M.Kalyani Vs. District Collector and Ors.,2. 13. Even in the case on hand, when the basis for initiating the disciplinary action against the petitioner is the panchanama dated 09.08.2024 and as well as the seizure report alleged to be prepared by the 5th respondent, not furnishing the same to the petitioner to defend her case effectively is unlawful. Further, merely affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her explanation, does not, in any way, fulfil the requirement of a reasonable opportunity, particularly when the initial suspension proceedings dated 16.08.2024 were purely based on the panchanama dated 09.08.2024 and the seizure report dated 12.08.2024. 1 1996 (1) ALD 473 : 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP) 2 2006 (5) ALD 796 11 VS,J W.P.No.22410 of 2025 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the proceedings in Rc.CS.369/2024, dated 24.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent passed in Appeal Case No.CS2/38/2025, dated 25.07.2025 are hereby set-aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry duly following the procedure stipulated under law and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. As third party interest has already been created pending this petition, the 3rd respondent shall finalize the enquiry, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. 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