IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5379 OF 2025 let % '■f o; fe'3 fh Between: Seepana Sridevi, W/o Ramana, Aged 43 years, Occ; FP Shop Dealer, R/o. Vanjangi Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretaryto Government (Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS-I) Department), Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Joint Collector (CS), Srikakulam District. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District. 4. Tahsildar, Amadalavalasa Mandal SrikakulamDistrict. ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Rc.No. 1779/2024 CS, dt. 18.02.2025 passed by the 3'^^ respondent thereby terminated the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the FP Shop No.0118039 situated in Vanjangi Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting enquiry, without furnishing the report dt. 02.01.2025 of the 4*'^ respondent, without considering petitioners explanation dt. 10.01.2025, without giving opportunity of personal hearing and without recording reasons, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Publid Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 18.02.2025 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders. 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 may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.1779/2024 CS, dt. 18.02.2025 passed by the 3'“'^ respondent and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 0118039 situated in Vanjangi Village, Amadalavalasa Mandat, Srikakulam District, by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders, pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER ■* APHC010099132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5379/2025 Between: Seepana Sridevi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is an organizer of Sri Vijaya Durga Self Help Group in Vanajangi Village. She was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer for shop No.0118039 of Vanjangi Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. On the report submitted by the 4*^ respondent (Tahsildar), a show cause notice was served by the 3^^ respondent to the petitioner on 04.01.2025, alleging variation of stock in 9.50 quintals of fortified rice and the petitioner has failed to display the stock on the notice board. The said show cause notice was served to the petitioner without furnishing the report dated 2 JS,J W.P.No.5379/2025^ 02.01.2025 submitted by the 4 explanation for the charges leveled against her participate in the personal hearing on 13.02.2025 respondent. The petitioner has submitted her and she was also asked to on which day, the respondent was not available. Without conducting personal hearing respondent has issued proceedings dated 18.02.2025 rd , the 3 terminating the dealership of the petitioner’s fair price shop. Questioning the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. same, the above 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the show cause notice dated 04.02.2025 was issued on the report submitted by the 4'^ respondent for which the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation for the charges framed against her. The petitioner has also filed photographs demonstrate that the commodities which clearly are available in the petitioner’s shop and the petitioner displayed the commodities on the notice board. The respondent authorities, without serving the report of the 4 respondent and without conducting personal hearing, have passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, terminating the petitioner as fair price shop dealer on the ground that the explanation of the individual was found to be proforma, afterthought and there is no material evidence produced by the individual. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Supplies submits that the petitioner has not produced prove the charges leveled against her and for Civil reasonable evidence to '■:e was issued directing the a 3 JS,J W.P.No.5379/2025 petitioner to appear on 13.02.2025 for which the petitioner has attended the office without producing the documentary evidence. The order of termination was passed basing on the material available on record. He also submits that as temporary arrangements are already made, the respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition. 5. It is evident from the notice dated 11.02.2025 that an opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear before the respondents for personal hearing, but, on that day the 3'^ respondent was not available. Further, without giving another opportunity, straightaway the termination orders were passed by the respondents. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks ^ held that the writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of fundamental rights or violation of principles of natural justice or where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the Act is challenged. 6. Since the respondents have failed to consider the explanation and the material submitted by the petitioner and as no opportunity of personal hearing is given to the petitioner, the impugned proceedings issued by the 3 respondent are liable to be set aside. rd Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings passed by the 3'^^ respondent vide Rc.No. 1779/2024 CS, dated 18.02.2025, are hereby set aside, directing the respondent to restore the dealership of 7. 1998 (8) see 1 4 JS,j W.P.No.5379/2025-' the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0118039 of Vanjangi Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS assistant registraI / //true copy// SEC OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government (Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS-I) Department), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. Joint Collector (CS), Srikakulam District. Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District. Tahsildar, Amadalavalasa Mandal SrikakulamDistrict. One CC to Sri Srinivas Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.5379 of 2025 g 2 5 MAR 2025 ° ^ . Current sieciton , ^ *9, DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS