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: 4331 OF 2025 Between; Chinthakunta Ramadevi, W/o. Subba Reddy. Aged about 50 Years, Occ: Permanent dealer of Fair Price Shop dealer of shop No. 1114024, D.No.1-92, Kutchupapa Village, Chapadu Mandal, Jammalamadugu Division, Y.S.R District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Y.S.R District, Kadapa. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Y.S.R District, 4. The Tahsildar, Chapadu Mandal, Y.S.R District. 5. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies. M.L.S Point, Chapadu Mandal Annamayya District. ...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 under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Wirt of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.C/3062/2024, dated 18.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and Public contrary to the well- established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently restore the authorization by setting aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner Shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Ref No.C/3062/2024, dated 18.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. may be as Fair Price above Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010083612025 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: 4331/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Chinthakunta Ramadevi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY 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: “...pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.C/3062/2024, dated 18.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of 2 'P W.P. No.4331 of 202,5 the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently restore the authorization by setting aside the same and pass...” 02. The petitioner was appointed as permanent dealer of the fair price shop No.1114024, Kunchupapa Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District in the year 2006 vide RC. No.17/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and considering the petitioner’s explanation, the impugned order wde Ref B/3062/2024, dated 18.01.2025, was passed cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as though the petitioner had not applied for renewal of the authorization and the price and stock details had not been displayed. He further submitted that the petitioner has the material to establish that the renewal fee had been successfully paid before the due date, and the petitioner had duly displayed the stock and price. 03. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions vide Ref No.B/3062/2024, dated 19.02.2025, and submitted that the orders of cancellation should be challenged in an appeal as provided in Clause 24(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018. Hence, the writ petition does not lie. 05. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is violation of law, a writ petition can be filed. He submitted that the enquiry to be held for cancellation of authorization as held by this Court in C. Durga 3 W.P. f\lo.4331 of 2025 i Srinivasa Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others^ followed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder; I has not been “26. From a conjoined reading of the Order, more particularly Clauses 5 and 24 read 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 warrants suspension, but should not be manner without applying mind; provisions of the Control with the decisions of case exercised in a routine (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 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 irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in Clause 24 of the Control Order. by a show-cause variations and minor (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; ' 2015 (6) ALD 359 W.P. No.4331 of 2025 (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.” Considered the submissions made on both sides. A perusal of the record prima facie shows that the renewal fee was paid within the prescribed time and the procedure for enquiry had not been followed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order vide Ref B/3062/2024, dated 18.01.2025 and giving liberty to the petitioner to place the necessary material before the 3'"^ respondent within 06. 07. 5 W.P. No.4331of 2025 fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue his dealership in respect of fair price shop No.1114024, Kunchupapa Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District. Further, the 3'"^ respondent shall pass an appropriate order within fifteen (15) days. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Y.S.R District, Kadapa. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Y.S.R District, 4. The Tahsildar, Chapadu Mandal, Y.S.R District. 5. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, M.L.S Point, Chapadu Mandal, AnnamayyaDistrict. 6. One CC to Sri. Papudippu Sashidar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4331 of 2025 w" i* 17 MAR 2025 C9 a ^ Curreni Section ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS