APHC010053662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3472/2026 Between: 1. K AMARAVATHI, W/O GANESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.1084085, MANGALAM VILLAGE, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI TIRUPATHI DISTRICT -517501. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CS) TIRUPATHI DISTRICT - 517501 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONALOFFICER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT -517501. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT -517501. 6. SAI MEGHANA SELF HELP GROUP, REPT. BY ITS MEMBER SMT P.SHAKILA W/O LOKESH TEMPORARY IN CHARGE DEALER, MANGALAM VILLAGE, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, 2 TIRUPATI DISTRICT -517501. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declare the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, the 4th respondent herein vide K/794/2025, dt.27.09.2025, Cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same by restoring the F.P shop and supply essential commodities to the petitioner as fair price shop dealer and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 allow the petitioner to distribute the Essential Commodities to the respective card holders as F.P shop dealer, attached to in shop No. 1084085 of Mangalam Village, in Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District, by suspending the operation of the order vide F/794/2025,dt.27.09.2025, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, the 4th respondent herein, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the proceedings vide K/794/2025, dated 27.09.2025, issued by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1084085 of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri M.Gnaneswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1084085 of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District, in the year 2013. Since then, the petitioner has been running the shop smoothly and efficiently and no complaints whatsoever have been received from any cardholder or from any authority. He further submitted that the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, upon conducting inspection on 04.07.2025 and alleged to have found variations in the stocks, prepared panchanama and seized the available stocks in the shop. Based on the said report, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officr, issued show cause notice dated 05.07.2025 to the petitioner, framing charge and inviting explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation on 09.07.2025 refuting the charge. 4 He further submitted that without considering the said explanation, without affording any personal hearing and without conducting proper enquiry, the 4th respondent had issued the impugned proceedings dated 27.09.2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer. He further contends that the respondent authorities have failed to supply a copy of the 5th respondent-Tahsildar’s report dated 04.07.2025 to the petitioner, particularly when the 4th respondent based his decision by relying on the said proceedings. Non-supply of the said report along with the show-cause notice, particularly when the authority has placed reliance on the same, amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 4th respondent submitted that 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 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 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court and the record would show that the notice has been served on the unofficial respondent. However, she did not choose to put up her appearance. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. The main grounds that have been raised and urged before this Court while questioning the impugned proceedings are that the authority concerned based its decision by relying on the Tahsildar’s report vide Roc.ASO/78/2025, dated 04.07.2025, without furnishing a copy of the said report to the petitioner along with the show cause notice before asking for an explanation and no opportunity was provided to cross examine the Panchayatdars/mediators whose statements were relied upon. 8. A perusal of the record would indicate that the respondent authorities have not supplied the Tahsildar’s report dated 04.07.2025 to the petitioner. Further, the enquiry was not conducted as per the law and no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross examine the panchayatdars/mediators. This Court in similar set of facts passed orders in W.P.No.36331 of 2025 by relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025. In view of the same, order impugned is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the principle of natural justices and is liable to be set aside. 6 9. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings vide K/794/2025, dated 27.09.2025, issued by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is hereby set aside and the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with law. Till then, the petitioner shall continue as fair price shop dealer.” 10. 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: 25th February, 2026 JLV 7 272 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3472/2026 Date: 25th February, 2026 JLV