APHC010159602020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Writ Petition Nos:9931 and 8314 of 2020 Between: 1. BESTHA ANAND, S/O PEDDA RAMANNA AGE 39 ADDRESS OCCUPATION FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O H.NO.4-51-1, MADDALAPALLY VILLAGE, NARPAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVT., CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS- I) DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDL DIST MAGISTRATE, ADDRESS. ANANTHAPURAMU Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P Nos.9931 and 8314 of 2020 2 APHC010138352020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8314/2020 Between: 1. BESTHA ANAND, S/O PEDDA RAMANNA, AGED 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O H.NO.4-51-1, MADDALAPALLY VILLAGE, NARPAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVT., CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (CS-I) DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. REGIONAL VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, , ANANTHAPUR. 3. DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLIES OFFICER, , ANANTHAPUR. 4. DY TAHSILDAR, , NARPAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) VS,J W.P Nos.9931 and 8314 of 2020 3 The Court made the following Common Order: Writ Petition No:9331 of 2020 The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue appropriate writ, Order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in R.C. No.K12/198/2020 dt. 16.03.2020 thereby, suspending the petitioners Fair Price shop dealership for shop No.45 of Maddapalli village, Venkatampalli Post, Narpala Mandal, Ananthapuramu district as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018, and consequently suspend the order of the 2nd respondent in R.C. No.K12/198/2020 dt. 16.03.2020 and direct him to supply the stocks to the petitioner…” Writ Petition No:8314 of 2020 The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue appropriate writ, Order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.3 and 4 in not supplying the stocks of the Petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop bearing No.45 of Maddapalli village, Venkatampalli Post, Narpala Mandal, Ananthapuramu district as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Essential Commodities Act and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 and issue a consequential order directing the Respondents herein to continue the supplies to Fair Price Shop No.45 of the Petitioner situate at Maddapalli Village, Venkatampalli Post, Narpala Mandal, Ananthapuramu district and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that: a) The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop bearing No.45 in Maddalapalli Village, Venkatampalli Post, Narpala Mandal, Ananthapuramu district on 11.05.2010. His authorization was renewed from time to time. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the petitioner without any adverse remarks. VS,J W.P Nos.9931 and 8314 of 2020 4 b) While the matter being so, on 06.03.2020, the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials along with Mandal Revenue Inspector-1, Narpala Mandal inspected the shop and found 85 kgs of rice in excess; 2.305 kgs of sugar shortage and 0.895 kgs of Red Gram shortage. The respondents sought an explanation from the petitioner, which was duly submitted the petitioner. However, the respondents stopped supply of the essential commodities without initiating any disciplinary proceedings, either by issuing a show cause notice or by suspending the petitioner‟s authorization. Aggrieved thereyby, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P No.8314 of 2020. 3. When the said writ petition came up “for Admission” on 04.05.2020, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that “appropriate action is being initiated and so far no orders of suspension has been passed”. Accordingly, this Court was pleased to grant the following interim order: “…In such view of the matter, there shall be interim direction to the respondents as prayed for. However, this order shall not preclude the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the inspection conducted in respect of the petitioner‟s shop…” 4. Pending the said writ petition, the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, issued the impugned Suspension Cum Show Cause Notice dated 16.03.2020, which was in fact served on the petitioner on 14.05.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.9931 of 2020. 6. When the instant writ petition came up “for Admission”, this Court passed the following interim order: “…In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order dated 16.03.2020 for a period of four weeks…” The said interim order was extended from time to time and was made absolute on 29.06.2021. VS,J W.P Nos.9931 and 8314 of 2020 5 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 8. During the hearing of W.P No.9931 of 2020, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed a copy of the instructions addressed by the Tahsildar, Narpala to the District Civil Supplies Officer, Ananthapuramu, which reads as under: “…Further, it is submitted that Sri B.Anand, Permanent FP Shop dealer, Shop No.1227045 of Maddalapalli Village of Narpala Mandal of Ananthapuramu District is running the same FP shop at present”. 8. It is evident from the record that basing on the instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that “appropriate action is being initiated and so far no orders of suspension have been passed”, this Court was pleased to grant interim orders dated 04.05.2020 in W.P No.8314 of 2020, directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner. It can be seen from the impugned Suspension Cum Show Cause Notice dated 16.03.2020 that it was served on the petitioner on 14.05.2020, but efforts were made to show that the same were served on 16.03.2020, which clearly establishes the fact that the proceedings that were served on the petitioner are antedated. Even otherwise, it can be observed that though impugned proceedings is titled as Suspension Cum Show Cause Notice dated 16.03.2020, the operative portion of the order calls for explanation from the petitioner within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the said Suspension Cum Show Cause Notice, as to why his fair price shop authorization should not be cancelled which in fact is without any enquiry being conducted as against the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, a perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the same is passed without conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Further it is contrary to Sub- Clause(5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 VS,J W.P Nos.9931 and 8314 of 2020 6 which has been held to be mandatory by this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others 1 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 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.” 8. In view of the above legal position and in the light of the fact that the petitioner is being continued as fair price dealer by virtue of the interim orders of this Court supported by the instructions dated 17.09.2025 furnished by the 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 VS,J W.P Nos.9931 and 8314 of 2020 7 learned Assistant Government Pleader, the impugned order dated 16.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 are liable to be set-aside. 9. Accordingly, W.P No.9931 of 2020 is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 16.03.2020. In view of this order and in pursuance of the interim directions dated 04.05.2020 in W.P No.8314 of 2020, no further cause survives for adjudication and hence, W.P No.8314 of 2020 is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.10.2025 Ksj