APHC010155002026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8666/2026 Between: 1. G H GEETHA, W/O. G.H.NAGARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO. 1219011, MEGHAMALA MAHILA,PODHUPU SANGAM, R/O. GALAGALA VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT – 522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT ANANTAPUR – 515001. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR D 515001. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANDURGAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT – 515863. 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8666/2026 G H GEETHA, W/O. G.H.NAGARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO. 1219011, MEGHAMALA MAHILA,PODHUPU SANGAM, R/O. GALAGALA VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT – 515863. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT 515001. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT ANANTAPUR THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANDURGAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT – 515761. THE TAHSILDAR, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI G H GEETHA, W/O. G.H.NAGARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO. 1219011, MEGHAMALA MAHILA,PODHUPU SANGAM, R/O. GALAGALA VILLAGE, 515863. ...PETITIONER PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT ISTRICT AT ANANTAPUR – THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANDURGAM, THE TAHSILDAR, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 2 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings D.Dis.No.B4/1271/2025 dated 27.12.2025 by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of F.P Shop No.1219011, Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop No.1219011, Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s F.P Shop No.1219011, Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District 4th respondent vide by suspending the proceedings of D.Dis.No.B4/1271/2025 dated 27.12.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurgam in D.Dis No.B4/1271/2025 dated 27.12.2025, whereby the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop No.1219011 situated at Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District was cancelled without any valid reason and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing 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 a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer for the subject shop and ever since the date of appointment, he has been running the shop without any complaints from the cardholders. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the primary/appointing authority, issued a show cause notice framing two charges alleging that the petitioner failed to make available the scheduled commodities physically as per the balances shown in the e-PoS generated printouts for the purpose of cross checking stock variations and that there was excess fortified rice, showing an intention to divert the same into black market and that he had indulged in clandestine business. Accordingly, an explanation was called for as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. He further submitted that 4 the petitioner had submitted his explanation and pursuant thereto, the authority, without conducting any enquiry, without examining the officials or the cardholders (complainants) and without furnishing the report of the Tahsildar to the petitioner, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization, which is contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.139 of 2025. He further submitted that if the said order is sustained, it would adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition setting aside the impugned proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Department placed on record the written instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurg vide Rc.No.B4/1271/2025, dated 28.03.2026 and submitted that as against the proceedings impugned, the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority i.e., Joint Collector. Instead, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition invoking the writ jurisdiction after a lapse of three months and therefore, on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. He further contended that in her explanation, the petitioner had categorically taken the stand that the excess stock belonged to her family members and that the same was kept in the Fair Price shop due to heavy rains and due to leakage of their houses. The petitioner failed to make available the scheduled commodities physically as per the balances shown in the e-PoS generated printouts for the purpose of cross checking stock variations. In such circumstances, no independent enquiry was required to be 5 conducted as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that there is neither any illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuing the impugned proceedings and that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the temporary Fair Price shop dealer for the subject shop. A show cause notice dated 12.09.2025 vide Rc.No.B4/1271/2025 was issued framing two charges, which read as follows: Charge No.1: That the Fair Price shop dealer has failed to make available schedule commodities physically as per the balances shown in the e-PoS generated prints to cross check the variation in stocks. There is excess of Fortified Rice 340 Kgs in the F.P Shop at the time of inspection and contravened the clause 12 (P) (3) of A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. Charge No.2: That the F.P Shop dealer has intention to divert 340 Kgs of fortified rice into black market and indulged in clandestine business for her pecuniary gains and contravened the clause 21 (c ), (D) of the A.P.S.T.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2018. 7. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation denying the allegations and inter alia contended that there were no complaints from any cardholder, however charges were framed against the dealer and 6 the inspecting authorities, without proper verification, made such allegations. It was further stated that the alleged excess stock belonged to the dealer’s family members and that in fact, there was no excess stock in the shop and accordingly prayed to drop the proceedings. After taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. 8. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that, despite the petitioner denying the charges and specifically stating that there were no complaints against the shop and that the stock found therein belonged to her family members, the authorities did not examine either cardholders, who are alleged to be the complainants or the family members of the dealer referred to in the petitioner’s explanation. 9. The record does not disclose that the report of the Tahsildar was furnished to the petitioner along with the show cause notice while calling for her explanation. The law is well settled that if an authority is relying upon any material, the same must be furnished to the individual concerned, on the basis of which the authority proposed to take action. 10. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the petitioner ought not to have kept others’ stock in the shop after delivery of the commodities and that such act amounts to violation of the Control Order, 2018. However, the said aspect was not dealt with by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the primary authority, while conducting the enquiry. As such, the said 7 contention is not sustainable. Even otherwise, before taking any action on that ground, the authorities ought to have framed a specific and independent charge, and dealt with the same in accordance with law, the same cannot be considered at this stage in this Writ Petition. The Division Bench, in the judgment referred supra, has categorically held that an order passed without conducting a proper enquiry, as contemplated, is illegal. In view of the above, the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings vide D.Dis No.B4/1271/2025, dated 27.12.2025 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned authority for conducting a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that the authorities shall be at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 07.04.2026 MP 8 179 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.8666 of 2026 07.04.2026 MP