APHC010570802024 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: 29700/2024 Between: 1. KAMANI SRINIVASA BABU, S/O. GOVINDARAJULU, AGE 45 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.1-95, POTIURU VILLAGE, SAVALYAPURAM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT NARASARAOPET. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SAVALYAPURAM MANDAL, PALNADU 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring impugned order vide Rc.No.1871/2024-G, dated 15-10- respondent Revenue Divisional Officer in suspending rd 2024 issued by the 3 the petitioner Fair Price shop dealer ship authorization of Shop No.074206-A of Potiuru Village, Savalyapuram 2 VS,J W.P.No.29700 of 2024 Mandal, Palnadu District pending enquiry even though petitioner has not committed any irregularity warranting the order impugned., as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set-a side the impugned order in Rc.No.1871/2024-G, dated 15-10-2024 issued by respondent, restore the petitioner FP shop dealer ship of Shop N0.074206-A of Potiuru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal Palnadu District., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute the commodities of FP Shop NO.074206-A of Potiuru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District to the card holders by suspending the impugned order in Rc.No.1871/2024-G, dated 15-10- 2024 issued by the 3rd respondent., pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass 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 to implead the petitioners herein as respondents 5 to 11 in Writ Petition No. 29700/2024 being the necessary and proper parties and pass IA NO: 2 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 leased to vacate the interim orders granted in IA.No. 1/2024 in W.P.No. 29700 /2024 dated 30-12-2024 or else we will suffer grave and irreparable loss and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.29700 of 2024 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order vide Rc.No.1871/2024-G, dated 15-10-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent/ Revenue Divisional Officer in suspending the petitioner Fair Price shop dealership authorization of Shop No.074206-A of Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District pending enquiry even though petitioner has not committed any irregularity warranting the order impugned, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set-aside the impugned order in Rc.No.1871/2024-G, dated 15-10-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and restore the petitioner FP shop dealership of Shop N0.074206-A of Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District.….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.074206-A of Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District in the year 2006, and his authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any adverse remarks from any corner. b) It is the case of the petitioner that certain persons with vested interest, intending to replace him by using political influence, pressurized respondent Nos.3 and 4 to initiate action against him. Pursuant thereto, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and submitted a report, dated 29.09.2024 alleging that the petitioner had shifted the Fair Price Shop without 4 VS,J W.P.No.29700 of 2024 obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. Basing on which, the Tahsildar, Savalyapuram also submitted a report dated 30.09.2024 to respondent No.3. Basing on these reports, respondent No.3 issued a show- cause notice vide Rc.No.1871/2024-G, dated 07.10.2024, framing a single charge and calling for an explanation within 72 hours from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice and directed the petitioner to appear in-person before him. c) Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.10.2024 stating that originally he was distributing essential commodities for his cardholders in his own residential house bearing D.No.1-124/1, however, due to dilapidated condition of the said house, he shifted both his residence, as well as, the Fair Price Shop to one Abburi Anjaiah’s House in March, 2023 and informed the same to respondents No.3 and 4 and started distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks and hindrance. The petitioner further contended that his authorization was subsisting and that he had applied for renewal on 27.03.2024 vide Challan No.7160078422023, which was pending consideration before the concerned authorities. d) The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite submission of his explanation, respondent No.3 without considering the same, straight away passed impugned order dated 15.10.2024 naming it again as a “show-cause notice”, suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry simply stating that the explanation is not satisfactory and also made alternative arrangements 5 VS,J W.P.No.29700 of 2024 by appointing respondent No.11 as temporary dealer. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 30.12.2024, this Court granted an interim direction suspending the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities pertaining to Fair Price Shop No.074206-A of Potluru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Palnadu District to the cardholders until 27.01.2025. Thereafter, the said interim order was extended from time to time. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 11. 5. Admittedly, on a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it goes to show that the impugned proceedings were issued naming it as a ‘show-cause notice’ and the authorization of the petitioner’s dealership was suspended on the sole reason that the explanation submitted by the dealer that he had shifted his fair price shop from his residential building to another premises as the earlier premises was in a dilapidated condition and that such shifting was done after obtaining permission from the respondent authorities was not satisfactory and that there was no proof to show that he had obtained any prior permission from the Tahsildar, Savlyapuram for shifting of Fair Price Shop to rented house. 6. It is evident that the 3rd respondent, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, issued impugned proceedings naming it as a ‘show-cause notice’, suspending the petitioner’s authorization without 6 VS,J W.P.No.29700 of 2024 conducting any proper enquiry into the facts submitted by the petitioner, and also made alternative arrangements by appointing the 5th respondent as a temporary dealer in the place of the petitioner, which is contrary to law. 7. This Court refers to the decision in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court held: “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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 7 VS,J W.P.No.29700 of 2024 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. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned suspension order issued by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable, as it was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without giving the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his case, as required under law. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, stated that pursuant to the interim order dated 30.12.2024 granted by this Court, the petitioner has been continued as the dealer for distributing essential commodities. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the continuation of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in Rc.No.1871/2024-G, dated 15.10.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and also directing respondent No.3 to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that till the petitioner’s authorization is subsisting, the petitioner shall be continued to run the Fair Price Shop. 8 VS,J W.P.No.29700 of 2024 11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 27.10.2025 KGR