IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4135 OF 2025 Between: Karri Parvathi, W/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ: F.P.Shop Dealer Of Shop No.0317002, Office at D.No.34-35/1, Ramapurampeta Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector, Sri Satya Sai District, Puttaparthi. 3. The Sub-Collector-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam Revenue Division, Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District. 4. The Tahasildar, NarsipatnamMandal, Narsipatnam. ...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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings NO.92/2025/LRDT, dated 11.02.2025 suspending the authorization in my favour of Fair Price Shop No. 0317002and the consequential Proceedings NO.92/2025/LRDT, dated 13.02.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 terminating the authorization issued in my favour for the fair price shop No.0317002 at D.No.34-35/1, Ramapurampeta, Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District without any notice enquiry or personal hearing as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to principles of natural justice apart from being one < violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to me under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of Indiaand consequently set aside the Proceedings, dated 11.02.2025 and 13.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.3. 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 direct the respondents to permit me to supply the essential commodities for public distribution No.0317002at D.No.34-35/1, Ramapurampeta, Narsipatnam Anakapalli District by suspending the operation of the ProceedingsNo.92/202 5/LRDT, dated 11.02.2025 and 13.02.2025. at fair price shop Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010079772025 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: 4135/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Karri Parvathi AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B.ABHAYSIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.92/2025/LRDT, dated 11.02.2025 suspending the authorization in my favour of Fair Price Shop No.0317002and the consequential Proceedings No.92/2025/LRDT, dated 13.02.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 terminating the authorization issued in my favour for the fair price shop No.0317002 at D.No.34-35/1, Ramapurampeta Narsipatnam Town, 2 W.P.No.4135of2025 'k Anakapalli District without any notice enquiry or personal hearing as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to principles of natural justice apart from being violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to me under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings dated 11.02.2025 and 13.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 and pass ...” 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of the fair price shop No.0317002 at D.No.34-35/1, Ramapurampeta, Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District on permanent basis by the 3^^ respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.1220/99/B, dated 29.11.1999. Since then, she has been continuing her service without there being any remarks. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inspection was conducted in the mid night hours and that the false allegation was made that the petitioner had not shown the order of authorization, though a photostat copy had been produced at that time. He further submitted that the allegation is that display board had not been placed and the stock in the fair price shop had not been displayed, but, in fact, at the time of the inspection, there was a display board and a copy of photo of the same had been enclosed to this petition, and thus, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and incorrect. 03. He further submitted that sufficient time had not been granted, nor due enquiry had been conducted prior to the passing of the impugned order of cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner. In this regard, it is further submitted that on 07.02.2025, the petitioner had submitted the explanation and on 11.02.2025, vide Rc.No.92/2025/LRDT, the order had been passed by suspending the authorization of the petitioner temporarily and shortly, thereafter, the authorization of the petitioner had been cancelled on 13.02.2025 vide Ref.No.92/2025/LRDT. 04. 3 W.P.No.4135 of 2025 The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions which are the replica of the impugned order. He further submitted that against the order of cancellation, an appeal would lie and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. In reply to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the law had not been duly followed by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition. 05. 06. On perusal of the record, it is observed that there is no variation in the stock to initiate any severe action against the petitioner. The rest of the grounds shown by the respondent authorities to cancel the dealership of the petitioner are more severe than required in the light of the allegations. Therefore, the impugned order is not valid in law and moreover, it was not passed as per the standards required in conducting the enquiry in view of the decision of this Court in G. 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; ^2015 (6)ALD359 4 W.P.No.4135of2025 (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. (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 5 W.P.No.4135of2025 and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.” In the light of the above preposition of law and the facts of this case, it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order. 08. 09. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Ref.No.92/2025/LRDT, dated 13.02.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I «= OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Joint Collector, Sri Satya Sai District, Puttaparthi. The Sub-Collector-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam Revenue Division, Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District. The Tahasildar, NarsipatnamMandal, Narsipatnam. One CC to Sri B.Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, Advocate [OPUC] T^^CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Three C.D. Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4135 of 2025 STOP >0 tg 0 5 MAR 2025 ^ Curront Section . ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS