APHC010064132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3309/2025 Between: Gangireddy Venkata Ratnam ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRAKASH C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.3309 of 2025 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide RC.E/318/2025 dt.29.01.2025, cancelling the authorization of petitioner's fair price shop No.08713024 of Bhotapalem Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set- aside the same and pass…” 02. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer of fair price shop No.08713024 of Bhotapalem Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, in the year 2023. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is a temporary dealer, he is entitled to all such protections as a permanent dealer. He further submitted that without even giving a show cause notice, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by the 4th respondent vide proceedings in RC.E/318/2025, dated 29.01.2025. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 10.02.2025, wherein it was mentioned that the dealership of the petitioner was placed only on interim suspension pending enquiry from the date of communication of the said order in exercise of the powers 3 W.P.No.3309 of 2025 conferred by proviso under Clause 8(4) of Control Order, 2018, but meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court. 05. The Supreme Court in the case of M.Vanaja vs. B.Balaseshanna1, at paragraph 26 held as follows: “26. If the expression “any person aggrieved” appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 is interpreted keeping in view the scheme of the Control Order, there cannot be any doubt that the said expression takes within its ambit a temporary fair price shop dealer and even a cardholder. The temporary fair price shop dealer is required to comply with all those conditions, which are applicable to a regular or a permanent fair price shop dealer. His/her functions are identical to that of regular/permanent fair price shop dealer. His authorisation can also be suspended or cancelled or altered in terms of Clause 5(4) of the Control Order. Once the authorisation of a permanent/regular fair price shop dealer is suspended or cancelled and a temporary fair price shop dealer is appointed in his/her place, the latter acquires a substantive interest to run the fair price shop. If the order of suspension or cancellation of authorisation of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer is stayed or set aside, the temporary fair price shop dealer is the immediate person who is adversely affected inasmuch as his right to operate the fair price shop will get stultified by restoration of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer. To put it differently, the authorisation of a temporary fair price shop dealer may not create a vested right 1 2008(1) ALT 520 4 W.P.No.3309 of 2025 in him, but he will certainly be a person affected by reinstatement of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer and, therefore, he will certainly have the locus to question the reinstatement of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer by filing an appeal under Clause 20 and revision under Clause 21, and we do not see any reason to give a restricted interpretation to the expression “any person aggrieved.” It is quite possible to visualize a case in which the appellate authority may, without assigning any reason or for extraneous consideration, restore the authorisation of a permanent/regular fair price shop dealer despite the fact that he may have been found guilty of grave financial or other irregularities and gross violation of the conditions. If a narrow interpretation is placed on the expression “any person aggrieved” appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 and it is held that the temporary fair price shop dealer and/or the beneficiary of the public distribution system is not “an aggrieved person”, then there will be none to challenge patently illegal or arbitrary order passed by the appellate authority. This will not at all be conducive to larger public interest. Even otherwise, we are convinced that the expression “any person aggrieved” appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 must, keeping in view the scheme of the Control Order, receive liberal construction so as to enable any affected or interested person to challenge the order made by the competent authority under Clause 5.” 06. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without even without issuing show cause notice, dealership of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. A perusal of the impugned order shows 5 W.P.No.3309 of 2025 that it is not an interim order of suspension of the dealership, but it is cancellation of the dealership without following due procedure of law. So, the writ petition can be filed. Merely because the written instructions indicate that it is an order of suspension, in view of clear language used in the impugned order cancelling dealership of the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside. 07. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2025. However, it is left open for the authorities to take appropriate steps as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 10.02.2025 NSM 6 W.P.No.3309 of 2025 108 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3309/2025 Date: 10.02.2025 NSM