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: 4329 OF 2025 Between: M. Sirisha, W/o. M. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Fair Price Dealer, Shop No. 1385067, R/o. Kothapeta, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 District Collector, Nandyal, Nandyal District. 3- The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nandyal, Nandyal 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District. 5. The Tahsildar, Dhone mandal, Nandyal 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop Dealership vide shop No. 1385067 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh vide Rc. No. D/CS/64/2025 dated 20.01.2025 without issuing any show cause notice and conducting an enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice alongside violative of the provisions of Control orders and consequently set aside the same and allow the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Dealer vide shop No. 1385067 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. ff- ( 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 orders passed by the 4*^ respondent vide Rc.No. D/CS/64/2025 dated 20.01.2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop Dealer vide shop No. 1385067 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010083512025 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: 4329/2Q2fi Between: M Sirisha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AYESHA AZMAS 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 4*'^ respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Dealership vide shop No. 1385067 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh vide Rc. No. D/CS/64/2025 dated 20.01.2025 without issuing any show cause notice and conducting an enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice alongside violative of the provisions of Control orders and consequently set aside the same and allow ...RESPONDENT(S) V 2 W.P. No.4329of2€25 the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Dealer vide shop No. 1385067 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh and pass such...” The petitioner was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer vide Rc.DT(LR)522/2022, dated 01.04.2022, of the fair price shop No.1385067, Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. 02. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there being issuance of any prior show-cause notice, the impugned order of cancellation vide Rc.No.D/CS/64/2025, dated 20.01.2025 was passed by flouting the provisions of law for conducting enquiry and then take disciplinary action, further submitted that the charge relates to the usage of metal box on the weighing machine which is baseless. She 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reported He further submitted that against the order of cancellation, appeal would lie before the appellate authority Clause 24(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public System (Control) Order, 2018. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent authorities had violated the provisions of law, the writ petition had been filed and the same was maintainable. Perused the record. Therefore, the impugned order is not valid in law as it was not passed per the standard required in conducting the enquiry in view of the decision of this Court in C. Durga Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others^ The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: that he had no written instructions. as per Distribution 05. 06. 07. as /• 2015 (6) ALD 359 3 W.P. No.4329 of 2025 “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. (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; t 4 W.P. No.4329 of 2025 (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.” The harsh action of the respondents in cancelling the dealership of the petitioner requires a detailed enquiry and just not a peripheral enquiry. However, in the present case, no enquiry was conducted at all and thereby, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. 08. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order vide Rc.No.D/CS/64/2025, dated 20.01.2025. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR ^erfejoFFICER //TRUE COPY// 1 S To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department, State of AP, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Nandyal, Nandyal District. 3. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nandyal, Nandyal District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District. 5. The Tahsildar, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District. 6. One CC to Sri Ayesha Azma S., Advocate [OPUC] ^ Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 8. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4329 of 2025 C3' 0 6 MAR Cl Current a ★ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS