APHC010076192025 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: 3991/2025 Between: Smt Gandikota Subbamma ...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 REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following 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.1355/58/2024-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 2 W.P.No.3991 of 2025 as fair price dealer for shop No. 0717058 situated at Chennayapalem Village, Piduguralla 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.0717058 of Chennayapalem Village, Pidiguralla Mandal, Palnadu District (Guntur). Since then, for 37 years she has been continuing her service without there being any remark. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the leave letter has been frivolously taken from the petitioner as though she was suffering from ill health and though the petitioner had submitted explanation on 16.01.2025 for the notice in Rc.No.1355/58/2024-G, dated 08.01.2025, directing the dealer to appear in the officer of the 2nd respondent, without considering the explanation in a proper manner, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.1355/58/2024-A, dated 29.01.2025, cancelling the dealership of the petitioner by rejecting the explanation on the ground that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not sufficient as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the said order is bereft of reasons and cryptic. 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 passed as per the Control Order, 2018 as the remedy is to prefer appeal before the appellate authority 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 when it failed to do so, the writ petition filed to challenge such action s maintainable. 06. Perused the record. 3 W.P.No.3991 of 2025 07. The alleged letter of the petitioner seeking leave does not disclose any reason for ailment or ill health, however keeping it pending for a long time, the notice dated 08.01.2025 was issued calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted explanation stating that she was forced to submit that leave letter and she is not intended to avail leave and prayed to restore her dealership. Even then, in 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. 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 4 W.P.No.3991 of 2025 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 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 stating a serious allegation in obtaining the so called leave letter was not at all duly examined and on the other hand it was rejected with flimsy statement that it was not satisfactory. The enquiry is perceivably a window dressing and the order is devoid of valid reason to treat it as not satisfactory, that too, as per the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention the decision of this High Court in 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. 1 2015 (6) ALD 359 5 W.P.No.3991 of 2025 (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; (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 6 W.P.No.3991 of 2025 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. (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 7 W.P.No.3991 of 2025 196 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION No:3991 of 2025 Date: 19.02.2025 SCH