1 APHC010053182023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2617/2023 Between: 1. M KANAKA DURGA, W/O RAMBABU, AGED AOBUT 46 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER SHOP NO.0616019, (UNDER SUSPENSION) MOULA NAGAR, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, , NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, , NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICER, , CIRCLE-I, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 6. SYED ALLAHUDDIN, S/O SAYED ABDUL SATTAR, AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER R/O D.NO.16-9, MOULA NAGAR, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL NTR DISTRICT. 7. SD KHASIM, S/O JANI BABU AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O D.NO.16-95/3, MOULA NAGAR, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL NTR DISTRICT. 2 8. SK AMEER BASHA, S/O SALEEM BASHA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O D.NO.16-26, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL NTR DISTRICT. 9. SHAIK ILYAS, S/O JANI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O D.N0.16-175/2, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL NTR DISTRICT. 10. SHAIK MUNEER, S/O SUBHANI AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O D.NO.16-193, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 11. MD FIROZ, S/O JAHAR AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O D.NO.16-193, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 12. SK MYSORE VALI, S/O MOULALI AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O D.NO.16-26, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 13. SK GOUSIYA, W/O SHAIR SHAFI AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O D.N0.16-132/1, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, NTR 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 Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order Rc.D2/SRA/140/2021 dated 17-01-2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the licence of the petitioner's fair price shop No.0616019 and supply the essential commodities for distribution in accordance with law and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitoner for distribution in accordance with law by suspending the order 3 Rc.D2/SRA/140/2021 dated 17-01-2023 of the 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 15-02-2023 passed in WP.No. 2617 of 2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition without any costs in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that she is a Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.6016019, Moula Nagar, Gollapudi, Vijayawada. The authorization was issued in the year 2006 and said authorization was extended in the year 2019 vide proceedings dated 29.05.2019. While so, basing on the confession of one auto driver-cum-owner, whose auto was seized, a crime was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.808/2020 dated 25.09.2020 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the meantime, basing on the report of the inspecting officer on the allegation that the petitioner failed to distribute the commodities to the cardholders properly, the 3rd respondent/Sub Collector suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s shop, pending enquiry, to which, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 19.10.2020. 2. After considering the said explanation, the 3rd respondent/Sub Collector, vide proceedings D.Dis.SCO-VJA/493/2020 dated 15.07.2021, lifted the petitioner’s suspension and ordered forfeiture of Rs.40,000/- from the trade deposit available with the Government, with a warning that if the same is repeated, it would be viewed seriously and authorization for running Fair Price Shop would be cancelled. The petitioner was further directed to deposit the amount within 10 days. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the amount as directed by the 3rd respondent. 3 It is her further case that respondent Nos.6 to 13 (cardholders), who are inimical to the petitioner, approached the 2nd respondent assailing the orders of the 3rd respondent and filed appeal, wherein the 2nd respondent though appeal 5 filed by cardholders is not maintainable, entertained the same and issued proceedings dated 20.07.2021 granting stay of operation of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. Having received the notice from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner appeared before him and requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the cardholders as the same is not maintainable. However, the 2nd respondent without deciding the appeal, adjourned the matter from time to time. 4. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed an application/petition to vacate the interim orders dated 20.07.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders. For which, the petitioner preferred writ petition vide W.P.No.35827 of 2022 and this Court, by order dated 04.11.2022, disposed of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of four (04) weeks. 5. In pursuance to the said order, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.D2/SRA/140/2021 dated 17.01.2023, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.6 to 13 herein (card holders) by setting aside the orders of the 3rd respondent continued the petitioner’s authorization under suspension till disposal of the criminal case. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Heard Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Despite service of notice, respondent Nos.6 to 13 did not choose to put up their appearance. 7. In elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the 2nd respondent in allowing to 6 continue the petitioner’s authorization under suspension till disposal of the criminal case is arbitrary, illegal and in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Before passing such order, the appellate authority/the 2nd respondent herein directed the 3rd respondent/original authority to conduct an enquiry and basing on the enquiry report submitted by the 3rd respondent, passed the impugned order. In fact, the appellate authority has no power or right conferred under the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (herein after referred to as “Control Orders, 2018”) to order such enquiry by the 3rd respondent. Even otherwise, the enquiry report submitted by the 3rd respondent was not at all supplied to the petitioner and sought any explanation in that regard. Without having any right ordering enquiry, inviting a report and basing his decision on such report is wholly unsustainable and against the violation of principles of natural justice. In the said circumstances, the order impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in M.Kalyani v. District Collector, Prakasam District & Ors1. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, submitted that no doubt there is no specific provision envisaged under the Control Order, 2018 conferring powers upon the appellate authority to direct the original authority to conduct an enquiry. However, basing on material available on record and for better appreciation of the case, such a direction was issued to the original authority. Accordingly the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry and submitted report to the appellate authority/2nd respondent herein and by 1 2006(3) LS 191 DB 7 taking into consideration the said report, the 2nd respondent rightly passed the orders impugned. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 10. It is not in dispute that a criminal case has been launched against the petitioner, who is a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0616019, on the ground of black marketing the commodities. The said criminal case was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As the criminal case has been launched against the petitioner, the original authority/the Revenue Divisional Officer/the 3rd respondent herein suspended the fair price shop dealership authorization of the petitioner. After conducting enquiry, the said suspension was lifted subject to the condition of forfeiture of her deposit and with a further direction to deposit amount. It is an admitted fact that petitioner deposited the said amount. It was also made clear that, in the event petitioner involves in any such irregularity in future, her authorization would be cancelled. Assailing the said proceedings, the respondent Nos.6 to 13 herein (card holders) preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector. 11. As could not seen from the record, notice was ordered by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner herein, who is the respondent in the said appeal and accordingly the petitioner appeared and submitted her explanation/representation raising one of the ground that the appeal itself is not maintainable. Incidentally, the petitioner also filed a vacate stay application seeking to vacate the interim orders passed by the appellate authority, who suspended the original authorities 8 order. Non passing orders on the said application, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.35827 of 2022 and this Court disposed of the same directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the unofficial respondents within four weeks. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of the appellate authority, the 3rd respondent directed the District Supply Officer to conduct enquiry and the said report dated 26.11.2022 was forwarded to the appellate authority/Joint Collector/2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent, by relying on the said report allowed the appeal filed by the unofficial respondents. 12. The said proceedings are assailed in the present writ petition mainly on two grounds that the appellate authority has no right or power to ask the authorities to conduct enquiry and call for a report; and that, the report which was relied on by the authority while passing orders was not supplied to the petitioner, which is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. 13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there is no specific provision under the Control Orders conferring powers on the appellate authority to direct the authorities to conduct enquiry. However, in order to ascertain the true facts, such a direction was given and basing on his direction authorities have rightly conducted enquiry and submitted a report. Taking into consideration the said report, the appellate authority rightly passed the orders impugned. 14. When the appellate authority identifies that any particular fact that has been missed by the Revenue Divisional Officer/Original authority while passing orders, or the original authority has failed to take into consideration any material while passing orders, the appellate authority at most can remand the matter to the 9 original authority. He cannot independently call for any report from the subordinates. Further, when an enquiry has been conducted basing on the directions of the Joint Collector, without hearing the petitioner, without conducting enquiry in her presence and without supplying a copy of the report to her, the 2nd respondent cannot pass any orders and basing his decision on the said report. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepak Ananda Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.2, held as follows:- “17. It is well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents extensively, MP Jain & SN Jain’s treatise on Principles of Administrative Law1 notes that: If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. (emphasis supplied) 16. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions made in the case and the material available on record, as well as the Control Order, 2018, the 2nd respondent (Joint-Collector) has no power or authority to invite an independent report from the original authority (Revenue Divisional Officer). Further, having 2 MANU/SC/0020/2023 10 invited such a report, without placing the said report before the petitioner (dealer) and inviting explanation on the same, passing the impugned orders by relying on the said report is ex facie illegal and wholly unsustainable. For the reasons stated, the order is in clear violation of basic principles of Audi Alteram Partem and same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Further, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 15.07.2021 is restored. 17. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is continuing as a Fair Price Shop dealer by virtue of the directions issued by this Court. However, the petitioner shall continue as a Fair Price Shop dealer, subject to the outcome of the criminal case. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal independently in accordance with law. 18. 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: 03rd February, 2026 JLV 11 263 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2617/2023 Date: 03rd February, 2026 JLV