APHC010077492025 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: 3999/2025 Between: Kethavath Lakshmi Bhai ...Petitioner AND The State of AP 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: 2 W.P. No.3999 of 2025 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, particularly the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide R.C. No.1345/06/2024-G, dated 16.01.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, set aside the same and continue the petitioner as the fair price dealer for Shop No.720025, situated in Veldurthi Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur), and pass…” 02. The petitioner was a dealer of the fair price shop No.720025, Veldurthi Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur). 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resignation letter has been frivolously taken from the petitioner. On 25.01.2025, proceeding vide Rc.No.1345/2024-G was issued by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner and further informing to file before the Collector, Civil Supplies, Palnadu District, if aggrieved. He further submitted that impugned proceeding was passed without following 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 Clause 24(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as the remedy is to prefer appeal before the appellate authority therein. 3 W.P. No.3999 of 2025 05. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the procedure has not been followed by the respondents, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same even by filing writ petition. 06. Perused the record. 07. 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. (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. 1 2015 (6) ALD 359 4 W.P. No.3999 of 2025 (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. (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.” 08. Since the procedure as contemplated has not been followed, the impugned order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 5 W.P. No.3999 of 2025 09. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order proceeding issued vide Rc.No.1345/2024-G, dated 25.01.2025. 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 6 W.P. No.3999 of 2025 533 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION No:3999 of 2025 Date: 19.02.2025 SCH