APHC010034562024 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: 1940/2024 Between: 1. KUPPALA VENKATA SUBRAMANAYAM, S/O. LATE KUPPALA PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER (UNDER CANCELLATION) FAIR PRICE SHOP NO. 1143020, LAKSHMIGARIPALLI VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R. DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, RAJAMPET REVENUE DIVISION, RAJAMPET, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, RAILWAY KODURMANDAL, Y.S.R. 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 an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring 2 assailing the proceedings in Ref No.A/177/2010, dated 26.12.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 ordering cancellation of my authorization as Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No. 1143020, LakshmigariPalli Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, Y.S.R District without assigning any reasons and quite contrary to the order, dated 31.08.2023 of this Honble Court made in W.P.No.3756 of 2022 as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also the well settled legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Indiaand consequently set aside the same and pass 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 pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to release the Essential Commodities in my favor for the Fair Price Shop No. 1143020, LakshmigariPalli Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, Y.S.R District by suspending the proceedings in Ref No.A/177/2010, dated 26.12.2023 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition 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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 30.01.2024 in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No. 1940 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a permanent dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1143020 of Lakshmigari Palli Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR District, in the year 1991 and has been discharging his duties by supplying essential commodities to the cardholders to the satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. While so, alleging variations in the stock of essential commodities found during inspection of the Fair Price Shop, the 3rd respondent issued suspension order dated 06.01.2022. 2. Aggrieved by the said suspension order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred writ petition vide in W.P.No.3756/2022, wherein this Court, on 31.08.2023, disposed of the said writ petition by setting aside the suspension order impugned therein and remitted the matter back to the 3rd respondent therein for conducting fresh enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by recording reasons and further directed to continue the petitioner as fair Price Shop Dealer. 3. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.3756 of 2022, cancelled petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 26.12.2023. Impugning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4 4. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that this Court, by its order dated 31.08.2023, in W.P.No.3756 of 2022, specifically directed the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to record reasons. Despite such directions, without conducting proper enquiry and without following law, relying on the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 26.12.2023. Further, the said report relied upon by the 3rd respondent was not supplied to the petitioner nor the complainants were examined in the presence of the petitioner. He further submitted that if the complainants were examined in the presence of the petitioner, true facts would have come into light. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further contended that the punishment is a major penalty wherein authorization has been cancelled, for which proper enquiry has to be conducted by examining the cardholders in the presence of the petitioner and by giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. Further, the authority concerned has to supply the report relied upon while passing the impugned proceedings along with the show cause notice while inviting explanation 5 from the petitioner. The same has been miserably failed while adjudicating the petitioner’s case, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In the said view of the matter, the impugned order is ex facie illegal and contrary to well settled principles of natural justice and the same has to be set aside, accordingly, prayed to set aside the same and pass appropriate orders. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, while justifying the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent-/Sub Collector, on counter, contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity while passing the orders impugned. He further submitted that, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petition vide in W.P.No.3756 of 2022, notices dated 06.11.2023 and 09.12.2023 were issued to the petitioner for personal hearing, and accordingly, he appeared and submitted his explanation. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot say that a fair opportunity was not given to him. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. A perusal of the material available on record, would go to show that the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/the then Revenue Divisional Officer, 6 Rajampet, basing on the report dated 10.07.2020 of the Assistant Supply Officer, having found prima facie material, passed suspension order dated 06.01.2022. The said order was questioned by the petitioner by filing writ petition in W.P.No.3756 of 2022, which was disposed of on 31.08.2023 by setting aside the impugned suspension order dated 06.01.2022 and remitting the matter back to the 3rd respondent/Sub Collector/the then Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting fresh enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents that, pursuant to the said remand, notices dated 06.11.2023 and 09.12.2023 were issued to the petitioner to appear before him. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent and submitted his explanation. There is no material placed on record to show that the report relied by the 3rd respondent while passing impugned orders were supplied to the petitioner. 10. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority concerned failed to adhere to the fundamental principles of enquiry while passing the orders impugned. No doubt, the enquiry need not be elaborate as in the case of disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of enquiry, which, in the opinion of this Court must be as described infra. Further, an enquiry presupposes an opportunity of personal hearing, including recording the small statement of the dealer and witnesses if any 7 and in cases where either cardholders or other persons send any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer and also an opportunity of cross-examination was also be given to such persons and also the officials who inspected and recorded variations of the essential commodities have to be examined. Further, as stated above, the concerned authority has to supply all the reports to the dealer on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. 11. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent/Sub Collector/the then RDO has relied on the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, which was not at all supplied to the petitioner herein. The sworn statement of the dealer is not recorded, and further, though the petitioner denied variation of stock, the mediators said to have been present at the time of inspection are not examined so as to enable the petitioner to cross-examine them. Without adhering to such procedure, issuing orders in such a manner amounts to passing orders behind the back of the dealer. 12. This Court in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, observed as extracted hereunder: <9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of 1 2015(4) ALT 572 8 the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra. 10. An „enquiry‟ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross-examining such persons. The licensing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry. 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 upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing= 13. Similarly, in M.Kalyani v. District Collector, Prakasam District & Ors2 and in M.Aruna v. District Collector & Ors3 has also observed in similar lines. In view of the reasons stated and the judgments referred supra, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the basic procedure and also Audi Alteram Partem principle and liable to be set aside. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: 2 2006(3) LS 191 DB 3 WP.No.29809 of 2013 9 <The impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent concerned for conducting proper enquiry afresh as per law. Till conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner shall continue as per the order dated 30.01.2024. If any irregularities committed subsequently while continuing the petitioner’s authorization, the authorities are not precluded from taking steps in accordance with law.= 14. Accordingly, 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: 28th January, 2026 JLV 10 299 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1940/2024 Date: 28th January, 2026 JLV