1 APHC010017182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1080/2025 Between: 1. SMT. GURRAPUSALA MADHAVI, W/O. HARI BABU, FP SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0883004, KANDUKUR MUNICIPALITY, KANDUKUR MANDAI, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAI SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT, NEILORE. 3. THE COLLECTORCS, NEILORE, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLY OFFICER, O/O.DISTRICT COLLECTRATE, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT, NEILORE 5. THE SUB COLLECTOR, KANDUKUR, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT. 2 6. THE TAHSILDAR, KANDUKUR MANDAI, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT. 7. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTYTAHSILDARI/C, KANDUKUR, SPSR NEILORE 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 tomay be pieased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, to declaring the action of 5th respondent-Sub Collector, Kandukur, who Cancled the authorization of the petitioner through her proceedings. dated 30-12-2024 in Rc.F/435/2024, is whoiiy iiiegai. arbitrary and opposed to the sprit of Judgments of this Honble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Controi Orders and aiso vioiate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set-aside the proceedings of 5th respondent-Sub Coiiector, Kandukur, dt.30- 12-2024 in Rc.No.F/435/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, Shop No 0883004 of Kandukur town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, and pass IA 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 may be pleased to stay the proceeding of impugned orders of lerned th Sub * Collector, Kandukur(5 respondent). v\ dated 30-12-2024 in Rc.F/435/2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to 3 Vacate The Interim Order dated: 20.01.2025 passed in I.A.N0.1 OF 2025 in W.P. No.1080 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Impugning the proceedings in Rc.F/435/2024, dated 30.12.2024, issued by the 5th respondent-Sub Collector, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0883004, Kandukur Municipality, SPSR Nellore District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vineet Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the 5th respondent, under the State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for brevity “Control Order, 2018”), passed the impugned proceedings dated 30.12.2024 cancelling the authorization of the 4 petitioner in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0883004, Kandukur Municipality, SPSR Nellore District, holding that the grave charge leveled against the petitioner was proved. He further submitted that only one charge was framed against the petitioner and a show-cause notice dated 12.09.2024 to that effect was issued, for which the petitioner has also submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an enquiry was held and ultimately, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled, giving a finding that the petitioner has been holding another office of profit as resource person, which is a major violation by a Fair Price Shop dealer under G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 03.12.2018. In fact, the same has not been mentioned in the show-cause notice and no charge was framed to the said effect. Further, the explanation given by the petitioner was not dealt in the proper perspective. More so, no cogent reasons were given while discarding the grounds raised in the explanation, instead, it was merely stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not substantial and that distribution of unlifted stocks to cardholders are not permissible under the governing rules and the dealer is not permitted to act independently in violation of the envisaged guidelines. Without framing any charge 5 and without inviting any explanation in that regard, imposing a major punishment on the ground that the petitioner was holding another office of profit as resource person is wholly unsustainable and contrary to settled law. If the impugned order is allowed to subsists, it affects the rights of the petitioner. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justifying the orders passed by the 5th respondent, contended that there is neither illegality nor any procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders. Even otherwise, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Joint Collector by virtue of Clause 24 of the Control Order, 2018. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner warrant interference by this Court in bypassing the alternative remedy of appeal. He further contended that the petitioner did not plead in the writ affidavit that the punishment was imposed without framing a charge. Therefore, he cannot argue across the Bench without pleading to that effect. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that legal grounds can be urged during the course of hearing and it 6 need not be pleaded specifically. In fact, the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the same has been specifically pleaded in the writ affidavit. As such, the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot contend otherwise in that regard. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0883004, Kandukur Municipality, SPSR Nellore District, in terms of the Control Order, 2018. Basing on the report dated 04.09.2024 of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukuru, on the ground of huge variation of stock noticed, a show-cause notice dated 12.09.2024 was issued to the petitioner by framing the following charge: “Charge-1: That there was total quantity of PDS Rice lifted is 9850 Kgs. Out of that distributed quantity is 5285 Kgs. Balance as per stock register (ePos) is 4565 Kgs. Whereas physical balance available at the time of inspection is 4758 Kgs and there was total quantity of 670 packets of sugar, out of that distributed quantity 355 packets. Balance as per stock register (ePos) is 315 packets. Where as physical balance available at the time of inspection is 360 packets. Thus, there is excess of 193 Kgs of PDS Rice and 45 packets of sugar which are much beyond the permissible limit and thereby Smt Gurrapusala Madhavi W/o Haribabu, FP shop dealer contravened guidelines 7 stipulated in A.P.S. Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2018.” It is also not in dispute that the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 18.09.2024. The 5th respondent, by duly taking into consideration the inspection report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukuru, dated 10.10.2024, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop dealership on five grounds. One of the grounds taken, which was treated as a major violation, reads as follows: “(iv) the dealer has been holding another office profit as Resource Person (RP) which is major violation by Fair Price Shop dealer under clause III and XII(i) of G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 03.12.2018.” 8. The main ground that has been raised and urged before this Court while impugning the proceedings is that the said finding referred to supra was neither framed as a charge nor sought any explanation in that regard. As referred supra, without framing a charge and without inviting any explanation, imposition of such a major punishment is unsustainable and contrary to well settled law. There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities have not framed a charge to the said effect. In view of the same, order impugned is passed in violation of audi alterm partem principle, as such, preferring 8 appeal before the appellate authority does not arise. As such, the contention advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that when an alternative remedy of appeal is available, filing a writ petition does not arise, is untenable. It is well settled principle of law that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular ground on the basis of which action is proposed to be taken, so as to entitle the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not specified, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. As stated supra, the order impugned has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the report of the Tahsildar dated 10.10.2024 and the inspection report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukur, dated 02.09.2024, were not supplied to the petitioner while passing the orders impugned. On the said ground also, the orders impugned has to be set aside. In this background, inviting counter affidavit does not arise, as the order would be the same even after inviting counter affidavit. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.2025, issued by the 5th respondent, is hereby set aside and the matter is 9 remitted to the 5th respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry by issuing proper show-cause notice. However, the authorities are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law. 11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 20.01.2026 ANS 10 221 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1080/2025 Date: 20.01.2026 ANS