APHC010083652025 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: 4328/2025 Between: Sanepalli Narasimha Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) 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: “…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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref No.C/3061/2024, dated 16.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles 2 W.P. No.4328 of 2025 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 case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as permanent dealer of the fair price shop No.1114031, Chenchupalli Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District vide LR- FP012300214581, dated 26.05.2023. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only on the trivial allegation that the petitioner’s fair price shop is being run close to the cattle shed, harsh action of cancellation of authorization was initiated by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is not valid in law and moreover it is not passed as per the standards required in conducting the enquiry in view of the decision of this 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; 1 2015 (6) ALD 359 3 W.P. No.4328 of 2025 (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. 4 W.P. No.4328 of 2025 (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.” 04. He further submitted that the fair price shop is being run in the approved door No.4/80, which can be seen from the photographs filed along with the petition and the cattle shed is far away from the shop room. It is further submitted that there is no proof that the essential commodities in the shop are in any way affected by reasons of hygiene. 05. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions vide Ref No.B/3061/2024, dated 19.02.2025, which are replica of the impugned order. 06. The photographs filed by the petitioner would show that the fair price shop in question bears the same door No.4/80, which was approved in the authorization of the petitioner. It is not even the case of the authorities that the shop has been shifted to any other unapproved location. Moreover, it is a specific case of the petitioner that he has been supplying the essential commodities in the same shop for a long time to the knowledge of the authorities. There is no observation that the shop is located in any unhygienic place. Further, the photographs shows that the cattle shed is away from the shop room. If at all, the place is unhygienic as per the opinion of the authorities, they could have directed the petitioner to take necessary steps, instead of passing the impugned order by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner on such mere ground without conducting the enquiry as required under law. As such, it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned proceedings vide Ref.B/3064/2024, dated 16.01.2025. 5 W.P. No.4328 of 2025 07. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Ref.B/3064/2024, dated 16.01.2025. 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.4328 of 2025 462 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4328/2025 Date: 19.02.2025 SCH