IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) | WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY \ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 3992 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Sanampudi Mattamma, W/o Anjaneyareddy, Aged about 63 years, Occ- Fair Price Shop Dealer Shop. No. 0705007, R/o D. No. 5-160, Macharavam Mandal, Guntur District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurazala Division, Palanadu District (Guntur). 3. The Tahsildar, Macharavam Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur). ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court 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. 1339/06/2024-A dated 03.01.2025 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. 0705007 situated at Macharavam Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur). lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by the 2 nd respondent vide R.C. No. 1339/06/2024-A dated 03.01.2025, by continuing the petitioner as the Fair Price Dealer for Shop No. 0705007 situated at Macharavam Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur), pending the disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the PetitlonerSRI K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010077462025 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: 3992/2025 Between: ...Petitioner Smt. Sanampudi Mattamma and ...Respondents The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1.K Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: 1.GP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: f 2 iSK W.P.No.3992 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 2'"'^ respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide R.C. No.1339/06/2024-A, dated 03.01.2025 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.0705007 situated at Macharavam Mandal, Palanadu District Guntur and pass...” The petitioner was a dealer of the fair price shop No.07050071, Machavaram Mandal, Palnadu District (Guntur). 02. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resignation letter has been frivolously taken from the petitioner. On 08.01.2025 a notice issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear before the 2 respondent on 16.01.2025 for submitting explanation regarding her leave for about 10 years. Subsequently, on 29.01.2025 (sic: 03.01.2025) proceeding vide Rc.No.1339/06/2024-A, was issued by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner without following the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the said order is bereft of reasons and cryptic. 03. nd was 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. 04. 3 W.P.No.3992 of2025 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. 05. 06. Perused the record. 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 others\ the relevant portion is extracted hereunder; 07. “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. containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor one. ^ 2015(6) ALD 359 A \ ? 4 W.P.No.3992 of 2025 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 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; or a (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.3992 of 2025 m In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the NO.1339/06/2024-A, 09. dated 29.01.2025 R.C. vide impugned order (sic; 03.01.2025). There shall be no order as to costs. shall stand closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, State of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer Affairs and Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurazala Division, Palanadu District (Guntur). 3. The Tahsildar, Macharavam Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur). 4. One CC to SRI. K SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES , High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 1. The Principal Secretary Civil 5. Two CCs to [OUT] 6. Three C.D.Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3992 of 2025 5 08 APR 2025 ^ . Current Section oY .C9/. ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS