1 VS,J W.P.No.24798 of 2020 APHC010372142020 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: 24798/2020 Between: 1. E. MAHENDRA, S/O LATE E. CHANDRANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O H.NO. 6-33, BHAVIPALLY VILLAGE PEEPALLYMANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PEAPALLY MANDAL, PEAPALLY, 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 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 rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide RC.CS3/62/2020 dated 30-6-2020 for cancellation of petitioners authorization of F.P.Shop No. 1348034 of Bavipally village, Peapally Mandal, Kurnool Dist as illegal, 2 VS,J W.P.No.24798 of 2020 arbitrary and violation of control order 2018 and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice sod 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 proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide RC. CS3/6212020 dated 30/6/2020 for cancellation of authorization of F.P. Shop No. 1348034 of Bavipalli village, Peapally Mandal, Kurnool Dist, pending disposal of writ petition, and to 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 Pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 18-03-2021 passed in W.P.No. 24798 of 2020 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.24798 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide RC.CS3/62/2020 dated 30-6- 2020 for cancellation of petitioners authorization of F.P.Shop No. 1348034 of Bavipally village, Peapally Mandal, Kurnool Dist as illegal, arbitrary and violation of control order 2018 and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and pass….” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1348034 of Bavipally village, Peapally mandal, Kurnool district by the 3rd respondent in the year 2018 and ever since, he has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, basing on a complaint made by cardholders of Bavipally village, Peapully mandal, the inspecting officials have inspected the petitioner‟s fair price shop on 02.02.2020 and have found certain variations of the stock on ground when compared with the stock register. As such, a report was submitted by the 4th respondent on 04.02.2020 stating that a variation of (-)4.50 quintals of rice, (-)15 kilograms of sugar, (-)46 kilograms of RG dal and (+)25 packets of ICDS oil was found and recommended to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the District Collector (CS), Kurnool, issued a show cause notice vide Rc.No.CS-3/57/2020, dated 29.05.2020 seeking explanation from the 4 VS,J W.P.No.24798 of 2020 petitioner, pursuant to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting any enquiry as required under Control Order, 2018, the impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2020 canceling the petitioner‟s authorization were passed. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 18.03.2021, this Court has suspended the operation of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide RC.CS3/62/2020, dated 30.06.2020. 5. Heard Sri. U. Ramanjaneyulu, 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 furnished a copy of proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide R.C.DT(L.R).192/2021, dated 25.05.2021 through which the 4th respondent was directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner‟s fair price shop. He further submitted that till date, the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1348034 of Bavipally village, Peapally mandal, Kurnool district. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. 8. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be seen from the impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2020 that after receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was directed to conduct an enquiry, but, 5 VS,J W.P.No.24798 of 2020 instead of doing so, the 3rd respondent reported that the variations found are beyond permissible limits and that the petitioner failed to answer the charges in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. Admittedly, nowhere it is mentioned as to whether an enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent on the charges framed against the petitioner. It appears that the 2nd respondent has cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization only basing on his explanation, which admittedly is against the procedure contemplated under Control Order, 2018. In B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1 this Court observed as under: “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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.24798 of 2020 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.” 9. 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, which need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant. In the case on hand, it is alleged that cardholders of Bavipally village, Peapally mandal, Kurnool district have complained against the petitioner herein. In such a case, the respondent authorities ought to have them examined in the presence of the petitioner or his lawyer and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. But, it appears that no such enquiry was conducted in the case on hand. The 2nd respondent, solely relying on the report submitted by the 3rd respondent and without conducting any enquiry, has issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2020 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner‟s fair price shop. As such, the same is liable to be set-aside. 10. In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 30.06.2020 are hereby set-aside. Further, the 7 VS,J W.P.No.24798 of 2020 respondent authorities are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of shop No.1348034 of Bavipally village, Peapally mandal, Kurnool district, until he is found at fault in another instance. 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