APHC010636812022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 38056/2022 Between: 1. G SHOBHA/YERUKALI SHOBHA, W/O G. GOVINDU, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O H.NO.2-22-3, KOTHABURUJU VILLAGE, DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL 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 of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Rc.A.3/CS129/2022, dated 29-10-2022, cancelling the petitioner's dealership to the Fair Price Shop No.1349029, of Kothaburuju Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, without any valid ground, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of 2 VS,J W.P.No.38056 of 2022 provisions of Control orders and consequently set aside the same, in the interests of justice, pass IA NO: 1 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 direct the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop Shop No.1349029, of Kothaburuju Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, by suspending the impugned proceedings vide Rc.A.3/CS129/2022, dated 29-10-2022, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 vacate the interim order dt.23.12.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.38056 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. U RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.38056 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Rc.A.3/CS129/2022, dated 29-10-2022, cancelling the petitioner's dealership to the Fair Price Shop No.1349029, of Kothaburuju Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, without any valid ground, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Control orders and consequently set aside the same...” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1349029 of Kothaburuju Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District on 21.03.2018. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaints either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. b) While the things stood thus, basing on the report dated 11.06.2020, submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 28.11.2020 duly framing two charges as against the petitioner, calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. For which, the petitioner submitted an explanation duly denying the said charges. Subsequently, the petitioner‟s 4 VS,J W.P.No.38056 of 2022 authorization was cancelled vide proceedings dated 19.05.2021. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16361 of 2021, wherein this Court has passed an interim order on 06.08.2021 directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry. Pursuant to that order, again a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2022 calling for an explanation. For which, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 29.10.2022. c) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondents even without conducting any proper enquiry, cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization vide impugned order dated 29.10.2022. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. While ordering notice before admission on 23.12.2022, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents to continue the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on 23.12.2022, the petitioner has continued to run the Fair Price Shop. 6. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner. However, it is stated that the appointing authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, himself conducted an enquiry before 5 VS,J W.P.No.38056 of 2022 passing the order without delegating the power to any officer. It is further stated that, though the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal under Clause 24(b) of the AP Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2018, the petitioner, without availing the said alternative remedy, has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. As such, requested this Court to dismiss the present writ petition by duly vacating the interim order. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it can be observed that four charges were framed against the petitioner, which reads as under: 1) that the F.P. Shop dealer has shifted F.P. Shop without prior permission. 2) that the F.P. Shop dealer has not displayed price list cum stock board. Thereby the FP Shop Dealer violated provisions of Clause 8(14) & 12(g) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. 3) that there is excess commodities of 188.35 kgs of PDS Rice on the ground to the stock shown in ePoS. In this case the variation is beyond permissible limit of 1.5% as per Clause 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. 4) that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions laid down under Clause 8(11)(c) of the AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 by renewing his authorization. 6 VS,J W.P.No.38056 of 2022 8. Though the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation for each and every charge, nowhere it has been discussed as to whether the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the first three charges are satisfactory or not except answering charge No.4. However, the petitioner‟s authorization was cancelled solely on the ground that she had never sought renewal of her authorization as per law, even after the restoration of her authorization vide proceedings of the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool in Rc.DT(LR)401/2020, dated 15.09.2021. As such, the petitioner‟s authorization was cancelled solely based on charge No.4, without going into the merits of charge Nos.1, 2 and 3. However, it is for the 3rd respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the first three charges i.e., charge Nos.1, 2 and 3 and give a finding on that aspect also. But, without doing so, the 3rd respondent, having considered only charge No.4, has cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, as no proper enquiry was conducted by the respondents with regard to other charges, which is admittedly contrary to the settled law laid down in the decision of B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court held as follows: “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, 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 7 VS,J W.P.No.38056 of 2022 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 enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 10. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned cancellation order issued by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable, as it was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain her case, as required under law. 8 VS,J W.P.No.38056 of 2022 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Rc.A3/CS/129/2022, dated 29.10.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer until and unless any other allegations or complaints are made against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 09.12.2025. KGR