APHC010036832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1911/2025 Between: 1. MOPURU NARASA REDDY, S/O PEDDA VENKATESHWARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0741018, R/O H. NO. 4-44, KONDRAMUTLA VILLAGE, IPURU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) PALNADU, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES), IPURU MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES), VINUKONDA. ...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 issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one 2 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3RD respondent in issuing Proceedings Rc.1505/2024-B dated 06-01-2025 cancelling the writ petitioner's authorization of Fair Price Shop no. 0741018, Kondramutla village, Ipuru Mandal, Palnadu District without conducting enquiry by giving opportunity of hearing and by recording valid reasons in violation of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary against to the principles of natural justice and consequently set- aside the same by directing respondents to permit the petitioner to supply the stocks to the card holders of fair price shop no. 0741018 of Kondramutla village, Ipuru Mandal, Palnadu 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 to suspend the impugned Proceedings Rc. 1505/2024-G dated 06-01-2025 issued by 3RD respondent by directing the respondent to permit the writ petitioner to supply the essential commodities to the card holders of Fair Price shop No. 0741018 of Kondramutia village, Ipuru Mandal, Palnadu district and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a dealer of fair price shop No.0741018 of Kondramutla Village, in the year 2012 and discharging his duties as dealer and supplying the commodities to the cardholders to the utmost satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. While so, on 08.08.2024 at 12.00 PM the officials have conducted inspection in petitioner’s fair price shop and found variations in rice stocks between the ground stock available in the fair price shop and entries recorded in ePOS device, the respondents, handed over the stocks to another dealer and suspended the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said suspension, the petitioner preferred a writ petition vide W.P.No.20774/2024 wherein this Court, on 30.09.2024, disposed of directing the petitioner to submit explanation along with necessary documents to the concerned authorities and further directed the authorities to conduct enquiry within two months. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 17.10.2024 and the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 30.10.2024 informing the petitioner to appear before him on 06.11.2024 along with evidence and explanation in Section 6A case and he submitted another explanation on 06.11.2024 duly informing that the stock has been supplied to the cardholders as well as to the Headmasters of the concerned school institutions wherein they put their thumb impression on 4 the biometric machine for receiving stock. Further, the Headmistress of the said schools stated that she cannot take rice immediately due to school elections. Despite the said explanation, the authorities, without looking into the same and without conducting proper enquiry, as prescribed under Control Order, 2018, the 3rd respondent issued the proceedings vide Rc.1505/2024-B dated 06.01.2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Impugning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, the authorities, without conducting proper enquiry and without following law, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 06.01.2025. He further contended that the punishment being a major penalty, the authorities ought not to have cancelled the authorization without conducting proper enquiry by examining the cardholders in the presence of the petitioner and giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. Further, the authority concerned has to supply the report which was relied on by him while passing the impugned proceedings along with show cause notice while inviting explanation from the petitioner, the same has been miserably 5 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. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity while passing the orders impugned. He further submitted that proceedings dated 30.10.2024 was issued to the petitioner for which an explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 06.11.2024. 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, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.20774 of 2024 dated 30.09.2024, a notice vide R.C.No.1544/2024-G dated 30.10.2024 has been issued to the petitioner asking the petitioner to appear for hearing on 06.11.2024 before the 3rd respondent along with evidence and explanation to 6A case pending 6 against him. A reading of the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent dated 06.01.2025, would indicate that basing on some complaints, the authorities inspected the subject shop and found variations, as such, initiated 6A enquiry against the petitioner and basing on the same, a disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned notice has been issued. A perusal of the record would further show that this Court, on 11.03.2025, granted interim order suspending the impugned proceedings dated 06.01.2025. As stated supra, there are complainants in the present case and the authorities have not examined those complainants in the presence of the petitioner. 7. 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 case of a 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 and in case where either cardholder 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 the such 7 persons. Further, as stated above, the concerned authority, has to supply all the reports to the dealer, which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. 8. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner the 3rd respondent has relied on the report of the Tahsildar which was not at all supplied to the petitioner herein and also the recording of the small statement of the dealer and witnesses was not done. Without adhering to such procedure, issuing orders in such a manner amounts to passing orders behind the back of the dealer. 9. 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 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 1 2015(4) ALT 572 8 /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” 10. 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: 11. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.1505/2024-B dated 06.01.2025 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent concerned for conducting proper enquiry afresh as per law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 2 2006(3) LS 191 DB 3 WP.No.29809 of 2013 9 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 21st January, 2026 RKS