APHC010212622021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 12243/2021 Between: 1. S. BABU, S/O SUNKANNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.1320019, THIPPANUR VILLAGE, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI DIVISION, KURNOOL. DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, GONEGANDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL 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.12243 of 2021 pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned show cause notice in Rc.M.128/2021, Dt. 01.04.2021 and consequential order in Rc.M.128/2021, Dt. 16.06.2021passed by the 4th respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, and violation of Principles of Natural Justice, apart from contrary to the provisions of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the Petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer of Shop No.11320019, Thippanur Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 to suspend the Impugned Order in Rc.M.128/2021, Dt. 16.06.2021passed by the 4th respondent, and direct the 5th respondent to supply the commodities to the petitioner to run his F.P. Shop No. No.11320019, Thippanur Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 orders dated 29.06.2021 passed in W.P. No. 12243 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.12243 of 2021 The Court made the following: 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 or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned show cause notice in Rc.M.128/2021, Dt. 01.04.2021 and consequential order in Rc.M.128/2021, Dt. 16.06.2021 passed by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, and violation of Principles of Natural Justice, apart from contrary to the provisions of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 by setting aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the Petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer of Shop No.11320019, Thippanur Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District in the interest of justice...” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1320019 of Thippanur Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni vide proceedings in Rc.M.275/2018, dated 16.05.2018. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any allegations against him. b) While so, on 17.12.2020, at about 10.30 to 11.00 a.m., the Tahsildar, Gonegandla Mandal/5th respondent herein along with his staff inspected the 4 VS,J W.P.No.12243 of 2021 petitioner’s shop and found variations shwoing ‘(+)06.03 quintals of rice and (+) 20.38 kgs of sugar is excess’ on ground. Therefore, the Inspecting Officials, without hearing the explanation of the petitioner that he was yet to be distribute the commodities to the cardholders at the time of inspection and that there is no variation, prepared a panchanama as if the petitioner committed irregularities and submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni/4th respondent herein. Subsequently, the 4th respondent issued a show- cause notice dated 05.01.2021 to the petitioner directing him to submit his explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why his dealership should not be cancelled. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 16.01.2021 explaining that there are no variations on ground balance since the commodities are yet to be distributed and all the allegations are false and requested to drop the further proceedings. However, without considering the said explanation, the 4th respondent passed the suspension order dated 23.01.2021. Aggrieved by the said show-cause notice and suspension order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4463 of 2021, wherein this Court vide order dated 23.02.2021, allowed the said writ petition setting aside the suspension order. c) Subsequently, the 4th respondent once again issued show-cause notice dated 01.04.2021 stating that the villagers have complained that there is a criminal case registered against the petitioner at Gonegandla Police 5 VS,J W.P.No.12243 of 2021 Station in F.I.R.No.167 of 2019 on 27.09.2019 as accused No.6 and thereby the petitioner violated provisions of Clause 22 under APSTPDS (Control Order, 2018) and directed him to attend before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni on 15.01.2021 at 11.00 a.m. along with connected records and written explanation. For which, on 09.04.2021, the petitioner submitted his explanation duly enclosing the relevant records and explained that he has not violated any conditions of the authorization and due to political rivalry in the village, the said case was falsely foisted and requested the 4th respondent to drop further action. However, the 4th respondent without appreciating the said explanation, passed impugned order dated 16.06.2021 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization as he was disqualified to continue as Fair Price Shop dealer in terms of condition No.22 of the authorization, even without conducting a detailed enquiry. d) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Kurnool/2nd respondent herein on 21.06.2021 along with stay application and in spite of petitioner’s counsel request, the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders on the stay application. Under the guise of impugned cancellation order and taking advantage of the inaction of the 2nd respondent in passing the orders in stay petition, the 4th and 5th respondents are taking steps to allot the commodities to the neighbouring Fair Price Shop dealer at 6 VS,J W.P.No.12243 of 2021 the instance of political leaders. Challenging the said impugned order dated 16.06.2021, the present writ petition is filed. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 29.06.2021, this Court passed interim order suspending the impugned order vide Rc.M.128/2021 dated 16.06.2021 passed by the 4th respondent and directed the 5th respondent to supply 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 Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has produced a copy of instructions of the Tahsildar, Gonegandla Mandal/5th respondent, vide Rc.B.213/2021, dated 24.07.2021, wherein it is stated that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 29.06.2021, the 4th respondent issued proceedings No.Rc.M.128/2021 dated 19.07.2021 restoring the petitioner’s authorization for Fair Price Shop No.1320019, Thippanur Village, Gonegandla Mandal and also taking steps for entering the details of the petitioner in e-poss devise to supply essential commodities from August 2021. 6. 6. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be seen that in pursuance of the show-cause notice dated 01.04.2021 issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.04.2021, but in spite of the same, even without conducting any enquiry as required under the 7 VS,J W.P.No.12243 of 2021 Control Order, only on the sole ground that a Criminal Case was registered vide FIR No.167 of 2019 before the Gonegandla Police Station against the petitioner, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled vide proceedings dated 16.06.2021, even without conducting a detailed enquiry, assigning proper reasons and application of mind. 7. This Court in Banoth Ramesh vs. State of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary for Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and others1, wherein it was categorically held as follows: “4. In the absence of any provision bringing about automatic termination of the authorization on account of the pendency of a criminal case, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to run the fair price shop on the mere allegation of registration of a criminal case, that too on a charge, which is unconnected with the running of the fair price shop. So long as the petitioner’s authorization subsists, he is entitled to function as the fair price shop dealer.” 8. In the present case on hand, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and the same is pending, which is no way concerned with the Fair Price Shop. However, as held in the afore-cited judgment, mere pendency of a criminal case cannot deprive the petitioner of his right to run the fair price shop, particularly when the alleged charge is unconnected with the running of the fair price shop. 1 2010 SCC Online AP 951 8 VS,J W.P.No.12243 of 2021 9. As per the above facts, it can also be observed that the respondents have inspected the petitioner’s shop frequently without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from any third person and only with an intention to harass the petitioner and hand over the shop to some third parties. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the 4th respondent. The respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner till finalization of the disciplinary proceedings, if any, initiated or pending against the petitioner. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:28.10.2025 KGR