APHC010008552016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3086/2016 Between: 1. D.YUVARAJ, S/O ANJANEYULU, HINDU, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.22, R/O CHAKRAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR C S WING, ONGOLE, PRAKSAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKSAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ADDANKI MANDAL, ADDANKI, PRAKASAM 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 to IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 873 OF 2016 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 2 vacate the interim orders dt.03-02-2016 in WP.MP.No;3910 of 2016, in WP.No.3086 of 2016. IA NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP 3910 OF 2016 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 IA NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP 10948 OF 2016 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 permit the petitioner to be impleaded as party/proposed 5th respondent in this writ petition and also pending miscellaneous petitions therein, in the interest of justice IA NO: 6 OF 2016(WVMP 42208 OF 2016 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to Condone the delay of 24 days days in filing the Petition to Set-Aside the Default Order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 02.02.2024 in WPNo.3086 of 2016 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to Set-Aside the default order dated 02.02.2024 in WPNo.3086 of 2016, restore the same into file, hear and decide the matter on merits and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Proceedings Rc.H/548/2024, dated 24 14.07.2024, issued by the 3'^'^ Respondent herein, pending consideration of the Petition to Set-Aside the Default Order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 02.02.2024 in WPNo.3086 of 2016 and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 15375/NAMAVARAPU CHANTI BABU 2. 15518/GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) 3. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: Impugning the proceedings vide Rc.J/795/2015 dt.04.08.2015 cancelling the dealership authorization of the petitioner, and thereby confirming the said proceedings by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.CS2/268/2015 dt. 21.12.2015, who is the appellate authority, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a permanent fair price shop dealer. On 17.05.2015, the Food Inspector concerned and his staff visited the petitioner’s fair price shop, verified the ground stock with reference to the stocks register and sales register and found no variations, and a panchanama was also recorded. In the said panchanama, it was allegedly recorded that on 15.05.2015 an auto loaded with 13 bags, each bag weighing 15 kgs, was intercepted. Thereupon, the inspecting officials high-handedly seized the stock falsely alleging that the Revenue Inspector and Additional Revenue Inspector enquired with the cardholders in the village and that some of the cardholders allegedly stated that they had not received their stocks, and accordingly initiated proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “Act”) against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner diverted the rice to the black market. 4. In pursuance thereof, a false report dated 19.02.2015 was submitted by the Food Inspector to the 3rd respondent, and basing on the said report, the 3rd respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice vide Rc.No.I/795/2015 dated 27.05.2015 framing two charges and called for 5 explanation from the petitioner, and thereafter passed orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s dealership vide proceedings dated 04.08.2015. In fact, the cardholders also made a representation informing the authorities concerned that the petitioner was distributing essential commodities to the cardholders personally without causing inconvenience. Despite the same, the authorization was cancelled. Assailing the said proceedings, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector; however, the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner without properly verifying the records and without hearing the petitioner. 5. Neither the 2nd respondent nor the 3rd respondent provided any personal hearing. Further, the said authorities did not inspect the cardholders nor examine them during enquiry, thereby cross examining the said cardholders could not be done by the petitioner. Further, the said show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent basing on the report given by the Food Inspector under Section 6A of the Act. In fact, basing on a report under Section 6A of the Act, the authorization cannot be cancelled and at the most they can punish the petitioner under law or they can invite separate report. On these grounds, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. In view of the same, prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the orders impugned. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kalyani Vs. District Collector, Prakasam Dt. Ongole & Ors1., 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter, submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the orders 1 2006(3) L.S. 191 (D.B.) 6 impugned. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which explanation was also submitted and personal hearing was also provided. After conducting proper enquiry only, the order impugned was passed. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Karnataka State Rd Trans. Corp. & Ano vs S.G.Kotturappa & Anr 2 has categorically held that the question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case and the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vaccum. It cannot be put in any straight jacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to empty formality. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice without explaining as to how the petitioner’s rights have been affected. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that recently report has been received by the disciplinary authority i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, pursuant to which a show cause notice has been issued. However, the said fact cannot be taken into consideration in the present case, as it is a subsequent event. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.33 of Chakrayapalem Village, Addanki Mandal, on permanent basis. A show cause notice was issued vide Rc.No.I/795/2015 dated 27.05.2015 basing on 6A report of the Food Inspector, Addanki, dated 2 2005 (3) SCC 409 7 19.02.2015 framing two charges, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why his dealership should not be cancelled by duly furnishing 6A report under the Essential Commodities Act. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations, inter alia contending that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity and that at the time of inspection, the respondents had properly verified the registers and the inspecting authorities did not find any irregularities in the distribution register and also the petitioner did not contravened any clauses of Control Orders, 2018. The Revenue Divisional Officer/3rd respondent herein passed orders dated 04.08.2015 vide Rc.J/795/2015 cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership authorization. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector stating that the Food Inspector, Addanki and his staff inspected the shop of the appellant but they did not find any variations in between the available stocks and registers, which was recorded in panchanama as well. The said fact was not taken due note of by the original authority. 10. Further, the original authority failed to see that, as per the version of inspecting authorities, 91 cardholders stated that they did not receive the rice from the petitioner; however, the said cardholders later gave a statement that they never signed before the inspecting authority that they did not receive the rice. The said fact was also not taken due note of. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, despite raising several grounds, the appellate authority, in a mechanical manner, passed orders dated 21.12.2015 vide Rc.C2/268/2015. As could be seen from the order of the appellate authority, the appellate authority by recording the facts and the grounds of appeal opined that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority has been passed by following 8 due process of law and no reason or ground made to interfere with the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and dismissed the appeal. Assailing the said two proceedings of the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed mainly contending that the cardholders were not examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer/original authority and further a show cause notice has been issued by duly taking into consideration the 6A report under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 but no separate report has been obtained from the Tahsildar. 11. Circular vide CCS Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADLPP-CCS, dated 28.09.2015, wherein Clause (h) is relevant, reads as follows:- “f) A separate report shall be submitted to the authorization issuing authority to initiate disciplinary action against the dealer concerned as the appointing authority can initiate disciplinary action under the provisions of the A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 viz., for suspension/cancellation of authorization/forfeiture of Security deposit.” 12. By virtue of the said circular, before initiating disciplinary proceedings a report has to be obtained from the Tahsildar making a preliminary enquiry but in the present case no enquiry as required was done. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cardholders were not examined. If at all, the cardholders are examined, the petitioner will get an opportunity to cross examine them. The disciplinary proceedings in cancelling the petitioner’s authorization is a major punishment, wherein basic enquiry has to be conducted as held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025. Further, the judgments relied by the counsel for the petitioner, are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 13. For the reasons stated supra, the orders impugned are ex facie illegal, wholly unsustainable and contrary to settled law, and are liable to be set aside. 9 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned orders, vide Rc.J/795/2015 dt.04.08.2015 and Rc.CS2/268/2015 dt.21.12.2015. The matters are remitted back to the preliminary authority for fresh adjudication. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 28.01.2026. JLV 10 288 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3086/2016 Date: 28.01.2026 JLV