APHC010076172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No:3990/2025 Between: Smt. Gogireddy Madhavi, ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K Srinivas Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: W.P.No.3990 of 2025 2 Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide R.C. No.1341/12/2024-A dated: 29.01.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0704012 situated at Tangeda Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur) and pass…” 02. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of the fair price shop No.0704012 of Tangeda Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District (Guntur). Since then, she has been continuing her service without there being any remark. Due to ill health, the petitioner forwarded a leave application with duration of six (06) months and the same was rejected and instead some individuals from the Dwakra Group were appointed in the place of petitioner. Despite several representations to the 2nd respondent, he neither responded nor considered the representations. Later, the petitioner received a letter from the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.1341/12/2024-G, dated 08.01.2025, calling the petitioner for explanation. Without considering the petitioner’s explanation and any enquiry, her authorization was canceled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. W.P.No.3990 of 2025 3 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the leave letter for six (06) months had been forcefully taken from the petitioner as though she was suffering from ill health and that though the petitioner had submitted an explanation on 16.01.2025 for the notice in Rc.No.1314/12/2024-G, dated 08.01.2024, without considering the explanation in a proper manner, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.1341/12/2024-A, dated 29.01.2025, cancelling the dealership of the petitioner by rejecting the explanation and the said order is bereft of reasons and cryptic. 04. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reported that he had no instructions. He further submitted that the writ petition does not lie against the order of cancellation which is to be challenged as per the Control Order, 2018 before the appellate authority provided therein. 05. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that authority is required to exercise its jurisdiction within the bounds of the law, but as it was not followed, the writ petition was filed to challenge this action, and it is, therefore, maintainable 06. Perused the record. 07. The alleged letter of the petitioner seeking leave for six (06) months does not disclose any type of ailment or ill health, however it was kept pending for a long time and the notice dated 08.01.2025 was issued calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted explanation stating that she recovered health and prayed to restore her dealership. By a simple statement that the explanation was not sufficient as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the impugned order was passed rejecting the explanation. W.P.No.3990 of 2025 4 08. As per Clause XII (x) of the G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dated 03.12.2018, in case of medical grounds, the appointing authority may grant leave for a period of two months duly making alternative arrangements and seeking for leave beyond two months shall be treated as resignation for the dealership and the appointing authority shall issue notification for selection and appointment of a dealer for the fair price shop. When leave was applied, in a reasonable time, it should be informed whether the leave was sanctioned or not, or else, it would result in prejudice to the dealer as by virtue of Clause XII (x), the leave would be treated as resignation. 09. In case of resignation, this Court held in Chinnareddigari Sambasiva Reddy Vs State of A.P. [2015 (6) ALD 359] that a reasonable opportunity shall be given to the dealer to show whether the resignation is voluntary or not, since there is possibility of securing such letter under pressure. The relevant part of the decisions reads as below: “Ordinarily, no fair price dealer would like to quit his assignment. If such extra- ordinary desire is expressed by any dealer, it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to put the dealer on notice before accepting the resignation as foul play by vested interests cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I cannot appreciate the action of respondent No.3 in purporting to ratify the hasty and unauthorised action of respondent No.4 without even trying to get the confirmation from the petitioner as to whether he has sent his resignation out of his free will or the same is secured by any vested interests by force. The failure of respondent No.3 to make an enquiry in this regard by issuing notice to the petitioner vitiates the entire action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in easing out the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership. As respondent No.3 has not properly exercised his jurisdiction in acting on the purported W.P.No.3990 of 2025 5 resignation of the petitioner, his action culminating in acceptance/ratification of resignation of the petitioner is declared as illegal and the impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. As the petitioner is inclined to continue as the fair price shop dealer, he shall be permitted to continue as such under the authorization held by him.” 10. Since similar situation arises here as explained above, the same kind of steps shall be taken to avoid any circumstances apprehended and to ensure that the letter was voluntarily given by the dealer for any genuine personal reason. However, as an eye wash, the dealer was asked to appear before the 2nd respondent, but the explanation was not at all duly examined that too, as per the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that this Court in the decision of C. Durga Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly Clauses 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show-cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; 1 2015 (6) ALD 359 W.P.No.3990 of 2025 6 (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show-cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in Clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show-cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular Court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. W.P.No.3990 of 2025 7 (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.” 12. In the present case, the so called enquiry is perfunctory and an empty formality. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 13. In the light of the above decision, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 19.02.2025 SCH W.P.No.3990 of 2025 8 195 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION No:3990 of 2025 Date: 19.02.2025 SCH