1 VS,J W.P.No.13629 of 2020 APHC010207842020 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: 13629/2020 Between: 1. M. VARALAKSHMAMMA @ VARALAKSHMI, W/O. ISTHARLA VENKATESWARLU AGE 47 ADDRESS R/O. CHINTALAPALEM(V), JARUGUMALLI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT ADDRESS SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR 2. COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, ADDRESS PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICERCS, ADDRESS KANDUKURU DIVISION, KANDUKURU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ADDRESS CIVIL SUPPLIES, ONGOLE. 5. TAHSILDAR, , JARUGUMALLI MANDAL, ADDRESS JARUGUMALLI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ADDRESS DARSI, PRAKASAM 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 2 VS,J W.P.No.13629 of 2020 pleased topleased to issue a Writ/Order/Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing impugned proceedings in Rc. CS2(6)/254302/2020 dated 22.06.2020 of the 2nd Respondent on the same day of show cause notice against the petitioners F.P.Shop No.4 of Chintalapalem(V), Jarugumalli (M), Prakasam District under the cover of panchanama dated 06.06.2020 as illegal, arbtiary, without jurisdiction, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to control orders and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings issued in Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020 dated 22.06.2020 of the 2nd Respondent forthwith and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 operation of Impugned proceedings vide Rc.CS2(6)254302/2020 dated 22.06.2020 of the 2nd Respondent against the petitioners F.P.Shop No.0849004 of Chintalapalem(V), Jarugumalli (M), Prakasam District by directing the Respondents to allow her to distribute the commodities forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.13629 of 2020 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/Order/Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing impugned proceedings in Rc. CS2(6)/254302/2020 dated 22.06.2020 of the 2nd Respondent on the same day of show cause notice against the petitioners F.P.Shop No.4 of Chintalapalem(V), Jarugumalli (M), Prakasam District under the cover of panchanama dated 06.06.2020 as illegal, arbtiary, without jurisdiction, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to control orders and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings issued in Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020 dated 22.06.2020 of the 2nd Respondent forthwith and to pass….” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.4, S.C. Palle, Chintalapalem village, Jarugumalli mandal, Prakasam district in the year 2007 and ever since, she has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 06.06.2020, the respondent authorities, upon credible information that the petitioner is not discharging her duties properly, have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain discrepancies in the stock. As such, vide Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020, dated 22.06.2020, basing on a report submitted by the 6th respondent dated 06.06.2020, the 2nd respondent herein has issued a show cause notice dated 22.06.2020 framing three charges against the petitioner and sought an explanation from the petitioner as to why her authorization should not be 4 VS,J W.P.No.13629 of 2020 cancelled, within a period of seven days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that without waiting for an explanation to be submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 22.06.2020, the 2nd respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry vide Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020, dated 22.06.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 21.08.2020, this Court has passed an interim order suspending the operation of the impugned proceeding dated 22.06.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0849004 of Chintalapalem village, Jarugumalli mandal, Prakasam district. 5. Heard Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced a copy of instructions of the 5th respondent herein vide Rc.DT/114/2025, dated 08.10.2025 wherein it is stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 21.08.2020, the petitioner is being continued as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0849004, Chintalapalem village of Zarugumalli mandal, Prakasam district. 7. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it can be seen that upon receipt of information, the inspecting officials have inspected the 5 VS,J W.P.No.13629 of 2020 petitioner’s fair price shop on 06.06.2020 and found certain variations in the ground stock when compared with the entries in the stock register. As the inspecting officials opined that the petitioner was doing clandestine business, a report dated 06.06.202 was submitted by the 6th respondent to the 5th respondent, basing on which, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020, dated 22.06.2020 framing three charges against and seeking an explanation from her as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her, within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of such notice. Surprisingly, on the same day, i.e. 22.06.2020, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings in Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020, dated 22.06.2020, placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry in terms of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2018, which admittedly is without even waiting for the explanation sought from the petitioner and the same is against the principles of natural justice. The fundamental rules of natural justice have become firmly embedded in modern jurisprudence and the same may be broadly categorized under the heads of: “(1) Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, i.e. no one shall be a judge in his own case, or “Doctrine of Bias”. (2) Audi alteram partem i.e. Right of hearing. (3) Reasoned decision/Speaking order.” 8. In present case, this Court is primarily concerned with the second principle, viz., audi alteram partem. “Audi alteram partem” is one of the most 6 VS,J W.P.No.13629 of 2020 important aspects of the principles of natural justice which literally means “to hear the other side”. This means the necessity to provide a fair hearing i.e. affording opportunity to the person concerned to explain his position before such person is subjected to any adverse action so that he may be able to explain the facts and circumstances and convince the authorities concerned that such a contemplated or proposed adverse action is not called for. This principle of audi alteram partem requires that notice must be given to the person before any adverse action is taken and such notice cannot be vague and ambiguous to the proposed action to be taken so as to apprise the authorities determinatively the cases he has to meet. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was issued a show cause notice by the 2nd respondent on 22.06.2020, but, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to explain her position before placing her under suspension on the same day. As such, the impugned proceedings in Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020, dated 22.06.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent are liable to be set-aside. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings in Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020, dated 22.06.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension, are hereby set-aside. However, the petitioner is directed to submit her explanation pursuant to the show cause notice issued in Rc.CS2(6)/254302/2020, dated 22.06.2020, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such explanation, the 3rd respondent, who is the appointing authority as on today, shall consider the same in accordance with law. 7 VS,J W.P.No.13629 of 2020 11. In view of the same, 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 Date:27.10.2025 Gss