IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH S'^ fi TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5244 OF 2025 O Between: P. Shilpa, W/o. P.Sivalingappa, Aged 36 years, Occ: F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1261034, R/o. Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings At Velagapudi, Amaravathi Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District at Puttaparthy Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 3. The Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District at Puttaparthy, Erstwhile Anantapur District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Satya Sai District, Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 5. The Tahsildar, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur 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 be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 4TH respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.61/2025C dated 22.02.2025 by terminating the petitioner to hold F.P Shop .No. 1261034, Yarraguntapalli Village, may f Amarapuramu Mandal. Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop • No.1261034, Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu Mandal District Erstwhile Anantapur District. of natural and same and further Sri Satya Sai lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities Shop.No.1261034, Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District by proceedings of 4th respondent vide Rc.No.61/2025C dated pending disposal of Writ Petition. to the petitioner s F.P Mandal, Sri suspending thd 22.02.2025; Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI P. NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER high court of ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010103442025 IN THE [3459] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5244/2025 . THE HONOURABLE Between: ...PETITIONER P Shilpa AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. p NARAHARl BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER. the action of the 4 The present Writ Petition is filed questioning respondent in issuing proceedings Wde Rc.No.61/2025C, dated 22.02.2025 by terminating the petitioner to hold Fair Price Shop No.1261034 of District, Mandal, Sri Satya Sai valid reason and without Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu District, without there being any Erstwhile Anantapur offering personal hearing consequently, to set-aside the same illegal, arbitrary and to the petitioner as by directing the respondents to continue k 2 JS,J W.P.No.5244of2025' ' the petitioner to hold Fair Price Shop No. 1261034 at Yarraguntapalli Village Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. 2. The petitioner is part of a self-employed group known as Sri Varalakshmi Mahila Sangam SHG in Amarapuram Village and Mandal. On 17.08.2021, the 4**^ respondent issued proceedings under Rc.No.1732/2021/C, appointing the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer. On 26.07.2024, the respondent directed the petitioner not to deposit 3. the cheques for essential commodities due for the month. After the respondents have stopped the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner's fair-price shop, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 15832 of 2024. On 26.07.2024, the same date this writ petition was resolved, directing the authorities to provide essential commodities as long as the petitioner’s authorization is valid. 4. After inspecting the petitioner’s shop on 16.11.2024, the respondents have ceased supplying essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. The petitioner has once again filed W.P.no.27348 of 2024. The writ petition was disposed of on 25.11.2024, directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop, contingent upon compliance with the requirements for such supply until the appointment is suspended or terminated by following due process of law. Based on the panchanama dated 16.11.2024, the respondents issued a 5. show cause notice on 25.01.2025. The petitioner submitted her explanatigri. 3 JS,J W.P.No.5244 of 2025 r 31.01.2025. The respondents, without considering the petitioner’s explanation, issued the impugned proceedings dated 22.02.2025, terminating the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership. Challenging this action, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, the appointing authority, being a quasi judicial authority, must provide cogent reasons for terminating the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership. In similar circumstances, this Court in 6. Manjula v. District Coliector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and Others^ has held as under. 7. 8. “11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upori those reports This procedure is anathema to the concept of ‘enquiry’ which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing. 15 Unfortunately, a perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No. 3 has not even attempted to hold an enquiry and he has allowed himself to be swayed away by the report of the Tahsildar, Gonegandia without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered by the petitioner. Unless the petitioner is given an opportunity of substantiating her explanation, it would be a grave travesty of justice to reject her explanation without holding an enquiry As respondent No. 3 has not followed this procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The orders of respondent Nos.2 and 1, which confirmed the order of respondent No 3 are also set-aside. The fair price shop authorization of the petitioner stands restored and she shall be permitted to function as the fair price shop dealer. This order, however, will not prevent respondent No. 3 from holding a ^2015(3) ALD 617 4 JS,J W.P.No.5244 of 2025 ' detailed enquiry in the light of the observations made herein before a fresh order. ” and pass 9. The ratio held by the learned Single Judge in G. Durga’s Srinivasa Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others^ is extracted hereunder: 12. Principles of natural justice require no person to be condemned without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity to such a person to defend himself adequately and properly. As a part of this concept, one Is required to apply one s mind to the defense setup. Non-application of mind is also the worst visible form of abuse or misuse of power. Adherence to principles of natural justice not only tempers the ultimate order with justice but also adds transparency and gloss to the final order. Natural justice is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which, justice would be a travesty. Justice ought to be administered in a way which leaves the least doubt to the prying nature of man and which convinces him that justice is being done because it has appeared to him to have been done. Natural justice is, in substance the procedural side of justice. It is an obligation of the Tribunal sitting to decide a case rather than a right of the party to be represented. An orderly procedure IS the morale of laws. Natural justice enters into the essence of legal justice because he laws are promulgated to apply to definite persons or things and the orderly manner in which they are to apply, is a prerequisite of their utility. ” 10. Even though the impugned proceedings refers to the explanation regarding the show petitioner’s cause notice, it was rejected by the respondents before the termination orders were passed, which violates the principles of natural justice, as no person can be condemned without being given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend their cases. Furthermore, the respondents, without considering the petitioner’s explanation, have issued a cryptic order which is impermissible under law. On this reason alone, the proceedings issued by the 3^^^ respondent are deemed to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, by setting aside the proceedings issued by the 4*^ respondent vide RC.No.61/2025C dated '2016 (6) ALD359 5 r JS,J W.P.No.5244 of 2025 22.02.2025 with a direction to the respondents to follow the due procedure by giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasonable order as contemplated under law within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents directed to continue the allotment/supply of the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No. 1261034 of Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, Erstwhile Anantapur District. No order as to costs. are As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/. M SRINIVAS assistan^egistrar TTOTyTOFFICER //TRUE COPY// / SEC To 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings At Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District at Puttaparthy Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 3. The Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District at Puttaparthy, Erstwhile Anantapur District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Satya Sai District, Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 5. The Tahsildar, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District. 6. One CC to Sri P. Narahari Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:03/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.5244 of 2025 and^ 'S> = 2 5 MAR 2025 O Co Current tieciion ^!a£gSpATCV<^^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS