1 APHC010084962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 4668/2025 Between: Desai Sujatha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 30.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) vide Rc.No.CS.420/2024 wherein the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer for shop No.1349049 situated at Kanapakunta H/o Kocheruvu village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal district, was cancelled. 2. Heard Sri Lakshmikanthi Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saranu Phani Teja, learned counsel for the 6th respondent and 2 Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 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 dealer to the subject fair price shop and when the authorities have suspended her dealership, pending enquiry, she filed W.P.No.26224/2024 which was disposed of by this Court directing the authorities to conduct enquiry as expeditiously as possible at any rate not exceeding two months by duly following the procedure laid down in the decision made in C.Durga Srinivasa Rao & others 1 and other provisions of law. It was also emphasized that all the documents that are required shall be supplied to the petitioner, if not supplied so far. He further submitted that, inspite of the said direction by this Hon’ble Court, the authorities without providing any documents that were relied by them, have issued the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. He further submitted that, the document leading to the charges, such as panchanama was not supplied to the petitioner so as to enable him to file effective reply and that the authorities did not conduct enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, ‘control order, 2018) and therefore, there is violation of fundamental principles of natural justice besides in violation of the procedure contemplated 1 W.P.No.30126 of 2015 3 under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 by solely basing on the report of the Tahsildar and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, justified the impugned proceedings being flawless and does not suffer from any procedural infirmity. He would further contend that the petitioner has been given a fair opportunity of submitting explanation and she has attended for the enquiry, as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that, the petitioner, as against the cancellation orders, instead of filing an appeal before the Collector (Civil Supplies), filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and 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. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that, in order to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders, the authorities have appointed the 6th respondent as temporary dealer and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that, inspite of the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.26224/2024, the authorities have not provided her with the documents relied by them nor conducted proper enquiry while 4 cancelling her authorization. It is well settled that, if an 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. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration and decides the matter against the party, the decision is vitiated for its amounts to denial of real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him/her. 8. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner’s authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-clause (5) of Control order, 2018. In the decision in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others2, this Court held thus: “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 car 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 licencing/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.” 2. 2015(4) ALT 572 5 9. The impugned cancellation orders nowhere specifies that copy of the panchanama and tahsildar’s report was supplied to the petitioner so as to enable her to file effective reply. Further, though the dealer flatly denied allegations made against her, the mediators present at the time of inspection and preparation of panchanama were not examined. Moreover, the sworn statement of the dealer was not at all recorded nor the mediators statement were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and the impugned proceedings nowhere states that an opportunity of fair hearing has been provided to the petitioner. Mere asking for attending an enquiry is not sufficient. In the absence of the above, it cannot be said that an enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 in its true letter and spirit. 10. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, without conducting proper enquiry as contemplated under clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and since the petitioner has not been furnished copy of the panchanama and tahsildar’s report, the said orders suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Control Orders besides being violative of Audi Alteram Partem Rule. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Due to negligence on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has suffered a lot of mental agony and incurred a lot of expenditure in approaching this court by filing writ petition. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to impose costs on the concerned authority who has issued impugned order. Accordingly, the 6 authority concerned shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner herein. The State is directed to pay the costs to the petitioner and recover the same from the authority concerned who issued impugned proceedings dated 30.01.2025 vide Rc.No.CS.420/2024 and file a memo before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., evidencing the compliance of the order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the proceedings vide 30.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) vide Rc.No.CS.420/2024 and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional authority for conducting enquiry afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS