APHC010056152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 3459 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JAGADAM SUMATHI WRIT PETITION No.3171 OF 2025 Between: Kunduru Venkata Mahalakshmi --- Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and 5 others --- Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.I/3703/2024, dated 22.01.2025, suspending her authorization of Fair Price Shop No.0843035, Madduluru Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under A.P. State Targeted Public JS, J WP No.3171/2025 2 Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, „the Control Order, 2018‟) as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the provisions of Control Order, 2018 and opposed to the judgments of this Court and consequently set-aside the impugned order by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer. 2. Brief facts of the case: The petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person, was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer in 2008. On 16.12.2024, Enforcement Deputy Tahsildars from Ongole and Singarayakonda, along with the Madduluru VRO, inspected the petitioner‟s shop. They verified the stock by using e-Pos machine and found no discrepancies. However, they prepared a false panchanama based on frivolous allegations and filed a 6-A case with the District Collector, Ongole. They also reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 27.12.2024. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 03.01.2025. On 22.01.2025, the authorities disregarded her explanation and suspended her dealership authorization on the JS, J WP No.3171/2025 3 ground that she failed to display stock details. Questioning the suspension of the dealership, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submit that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the respondents and found it as not convincing and issued the impugned proceedings on 22.01.2025 suspending, pending enquiry, the authorization of the petitioner‟s FPS and further submits that there is an Appeal provision under Section 20 of the Act Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the petitioner without availing the same has approached this Court. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. The 4th respondent has issued a show-cause notice stating that the petitioner has violated the provisions of clauses 12(n), 20(a), and Form-II 17(d) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. In the explanation for Charge No.1, the petitioner stated that, due to heavy rainfall, the stock cum price list board was kept inside the shop. Regarding the explanation for the 2nd charge, the petitioner JS, J WP No.3171/2025 4 stated that she possesses the Legal Meteorology Certificate and has filed a copy of it. As per her explanation concerning the 3rd charge, she noted that the FPS premises is clean. The Fair Price Shop is an old, tiled house with a roof covered by a protective sheet and is regularly cleaned, ensuring no dust or waste accumulation. All required documents have been enclosed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in B. Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein it was held as follows at Para No.11: “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.” 7. In another decision of this Court in A. Neelima v. The Joint Collector, Kurnool and others2, it was held as follows at Para Nos.10 and 19: 1 2015 (3) ALD 617 2 1995 SCC OnLineAP 695 JS, J WP No.3171/2025 5 “10. In the light of the above dicta, it must therefore be held that pending the enquiry, the orders of suspension which the appointing authority is empowered to pass cannot be passed in a routine way or as a matter of course. The appointing authority (Revenue Divisional Officer) is bound to exercise the discretion reasonably, bona fide and without negligence considering the circumstances of the case where such suspension pending enquiry is necessary. 19. In the light of this principle as enunciated by the learned Judge, it has to be held that if the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the appointing authority does not conduct an independent enquiry into the facts and merely relies upon the report based on an enquiry held behind the back of the fair price shop dealer by the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Vigilance Cell authorities, then unless a copy thereof has been furnished to the fair price shop dealer, the enquiry would stand vitiated on the principles of violation of natural justice. The principle would be applicable to cases of enquiry into the cancellation of the authorization and would not ipso facto apply to orders or proceedings issued in relation to suspension pending the enquiry.” 8. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.I/3703/2024, dated 22.01.2025, issued by the 4th respondent. Further, the respondents are directed to renew the authorization of the dealership of the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop and release JS, J WP No.3171/2025 6 essential commodities to her Fair Price Shop No.0843035. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:11.03.2025 DSH