1 APHC010018922021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1362/2021 Between: Kum. R.ramya ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 02.01.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) vide Roc.B1/2526/2020 wherein the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer for shop No.1049022 situated at Pathapalem village, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor district, was cancelled. 2 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, when the authorities have stopped supply of essential commodities to the petitioner without suspending or cancelling her authorization, she filed W.P.No.20402/2020 which was disposed of by this court on 10.11.2020 directing to release the stock to the petitioner. Before disposal of the writ petition, the authorities have issued the suspension order to the petitioner dated 27.08.2020. Later, instead of implementing the order dated 10.11.2020, the authorities have issued show cause notice dated 18.12.2020 seeking explanation from the petitioner as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner has questioned the suspension order dated 27.08.2020 and the show cause notice dated 18.12.2020 by filing W.P.No.25790/2020. It was further submitted that, pending consideration of the said writ petition, the authorities have issued order 02.01.2021 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, which is impugned (in the present writ petition) stating that the petitioner has not submitted her explanation within the stipulated time and that her authorization was lapsed by 31.03.2019. He further submitted that, the petitioner’s authorization is valid upto 31.03.2021 and to substantiate the same, her authorization was filed under Ex.P6. He further submitted that, this Court, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner, has granted an interim stay of impugned proceedings 3 on 22.01.2021. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders treating the interim orders as final orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 3rd respondent (RDO) on counter submitted that, since the petitioner has not submitted her explanation to the show cause notice dated 18.12.2020 within stipulated time, the authorities have passed the impugned order, as such, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that, the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal before the Collector (Civil Supplies), filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that, by virtue of interim orders dated 22.01.2021, the petitioner is continuing as a fair price shop dealer and in the event if this court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the authority concerned to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 02.01.2021 would indicate that, based on the tahsildar’s report, RDO has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted her explanation to the show cause notice dated 18.12.2020 within the stipulated time and that her authorization was lapsed by 31.03.2019. A perusal of the record would show that, the petitioner had filed 4 W.P.No.25790/2020 questioning the show cause notice dated 18.12.2020 and pending consideration of the said writ petition, the authorities have issued order 02.01.2021 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. Further, the Ex.P6 filed by the petitioner would indicate that, the petitioner’s authorization is valid upto 31.03.2021, which shows that the authority concerned has passed the impugned order, without looking into the records, without application of mind and in a mechanical manner stating that her authorization was lapsed by 31.03.2019. Also, nowhere in the impugned order, it was mentioned that the tahsildar report, based on which the authority has passed the impugned order was not supplied to the petitioner nor was an opportunity of being heard provided to the petitioner. As such the impugned proceedings have been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of and the impugned proceedings Roc.B1/2526/2020 dated 02.01.2021 is hereby set aside and the matter it remitted back to the 3rd respondent-RDO for conducting enquiry afresh. Till conclusion of the such enquiry, the petitioner shall continue as fair price shop dealer to the subject shop. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS