APHC010107522020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 6585/2020 Between: 1. P NIRMALA, W/O. RAMANNA, 45 YEARS, 0CC. FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 1322027, R/O. H.NO. 2/9 B.C. COLONY, JAIWADI VILLAGE, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, , KURNOOLL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PEDDAKADUBUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings vide Rc.CS3/486/2019, dated. 13.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent cancelling the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price No. 1322027 of Jalawadi Village, Peddakaduburu Mandal, Kurnool District without giving reasonable opportunity in the enquiry by supplying the enquiry report is illegal, arbitrary 2 VS,J W.P.No.6585 of 2020 and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to suspend the proceedings vide Rc.CS3/486/2019, dated. 13.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent by continuing the petitioner as Fair Price Shop No. 1322027 of Jalawadi Village, Peddakaduburu Mandal, Kurnool District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.6585 of 2020 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.6585 of 2020 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings vide Rc.CS3/486/2019, dated 13.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price No.1322027 of Jalawadi Village, Peddakaduburu Mandal, Kurnool District without giving reasonable opportunity in the enquiry by supplying the enquiry report is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass other order or orders…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop leader on 10.01.2018 for shop No.1322027, Jalwadi Village, Peddakadubur Mandal, Kurnool District by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner’s authorization was valid up to 31.03.2020. 3. While the matter being so, the petitioner’s shop was inspected by the Mandal Revenue Inspector along with the Village Revenue Officer, Jalawadi Village on 18.10.2019. During which, they found variation in the stock on ground. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 26.11.2019 to the petitioner directing him to appear for enquiry on 03.12.2019 at 11.00 a.m., accordingly, the petitioner went to the office of the 3rd respondent but no enquiry was conducted. 4. Further, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated Nil.01.2020, framing five charges as against the petitioner, directing the petitioner to appear in person or through an advocate on 21.01.2020 at about 03.00 p.m. and submit 4 VS,J W.P.No.6585 of 2020 her explanation. In pursuance of the said show cause notice, the petitioner’s advocate appeared before the 2nd respondent on 21.01.2020 and again on 22.01.2020 as directed by the 2nd respondent and stated that she herself is running a fair price shop and the charges leveled against her are fake and as such requested the respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry on the said aspect and further sought time for submitting explanation for the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, even without conducting any enquiry, the 2nd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 13.02.2020. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has stated that the Special team was constituted with the Assistant Supply Officer, Nandyal Division and Deputy Tahsildar of Gudur, Banganapalli and Yemmiganur, with a direction to conduct a detailed enquiry with not less than 200 license cardholders across the village on the allegation of unauthorized transaction of fair price shop run by an unauthorized person on the name of the original dealer. Thereafter, the team has visited the village and conducted door to door enquiry on 27.01.2020 and submitted a report stating that they enquired 204 cardholders out of which 197 cardholders stated that one Mr.Yenanna, unauthorized person has distributed the essential commodities from the period from June, 2019 to October, 2019. 7. It is further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that basing on the said statements recorded by the team, the 2nd respondent herein even 5 VS,J W.P.No.6585 of 2020 without furnishing a copy of the said statement to the petitioner in support of his defence and without even giving a notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation on the said allegations, has straight away cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, in support of his case, has stated that the respondents, as per the procedure contemplated under the EC Act, has conducted the enquiry by examining 204 cardholders, out of which 197 cardholders specifically stated that the petitioner had been running fair price shop through a benami person, namely Yenkanna, from June, 2019 to October, 2019 and as the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and also the petitioner never raised any objection with regard to the statements records from 197 cardholders, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. 9. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 13.02.2020, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was called on 22.01.2020, on which date the petitioner appeared along with her advocate and orally stated that she herself is running the fair price shop and requested to drop the proceedings against her and also for a detailed enquiry to be conducted on the allegation of Benami transaction. Thereafter, in the absence of the petitioner, the respondents constituted a team of officers and enquired 204 card holders, out of which 197 cardholders stated that the petitioner has been running fair price shop through a Benami person i.e., one Yenkanna, behind the back of the petitioner. 10. Thereafter, even without furnishing a copy of the statements of the said 197 cardholders and even without giving any further notice to the petitioner 6 VS,J W.P.No.6585 of 2020 calling for an explanation on the statements, the 2nd respondent has straight away cancelled the petitioner’s authorization on the ground that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved basing on the statements recorded by the Special team. This, in fact, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.02.2020 and matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent herein, who is appointing authority as on today, to conduct a fresh enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioner and as well as affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :03.09.2025 JLV