APHC010097322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. E BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O D.V.JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. TEMPORARY FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER SHOP NO. 1257048 R/O 6-18, APPALAKUNTA VILLAGE, HINDUPUR MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DIST. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR, , HINDUPUR MANDAL, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or D Order dated 17.2.2025 in Rc.No. 542/2025/C on the file of the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice besides A P State Targeted Public being violative provisions of Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and to consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1257048 of Appalakunta VUlage, Hmdupur Mandal, W.P.NO. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5026/2025 E BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O D.V.JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. TEMPORARY FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER SHOP NO. 18, APPALAKUNTA VILLAGE, HINDUPUR MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DIST. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT , , HINDUPUR MANDAL, SRI SATHYASAI 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the Order dated 17.2.2025 in Rc.No. 542/2025/C on the file of the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice besides A P State Targeted Public being violative provisions of Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and to consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1257048 of Appalakunta VUlage, Hmdupur Mandal, RC,J W.P.NO.5026 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI E BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O D.V.JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. TEMPORARY FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER SHOP NO. 18, APPALAKUNTA VILLAGE, HINDUPUR MANDAL, ...PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , , HINDUPUR MANDAL, SRI SATHYASAI 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other irection, declaring and setting aside the Order dated 17.2.2025 in Rc.No. 542/2025/C on the file of the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice besides A P State Targeted Public being violative of the provisions of Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and to consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1257048 of Appalakunta VUlage, Hmdupur Mandal, RC,J W.P.NO.5026 OF 2025 2 Sri Sathya Sai District, by regularly supplying essential commodities and pass such 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 may be pleased to issue interim directions to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No. 1257048 of Appalakunta Village, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, by regularly supplying essential commodities without reference to the Order dated function as 17.2.2025 in Rc.No. 542/2025/C on the file of the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of W.P.No of 2025 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.NO.5026 OF 2025 3 ORDER The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 17.02.2025 issued vide Rc.No.542/2025/C by respondent no.2-Sub Collector, Penukonda, cancelling the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.1257048, Appalakunta Village, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as F.P.shop dealer of the subject F.P.shop on permanent basis and ever since she had been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders. It is the further case of the petitioner that alleging variation of stock, the authorities when refused to receive demand draft for the purpose of supplying stock and pressurized her to give up the dealership, she filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.14053 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court directing the authorities to continue the dealership until appropriate orders are passed in accordance with law. It is further stated that despite the said orders, the authorities once again tried to stop supply of stocks without any orders of suspension or cancellation and thereupon the petitioner filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.2013 of 2025 and this Court by orders dated 27.01.2025 directed the authorities to supply essential commodities. It is further stated in the petition that respondent no.2-Revenue Divisional Officer issued show cause notice dated 31.01.2025 alleging variation of stock, for which the RC,J W.P.NO.5026 OF 2025 4 petitioner submitted suitable explanation and within two (02) days from the date of the explanation, the respondent no.2 passed the impugned orders cancelling and termination the dealership of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard and no enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 was conducted and therefore, there is violation of fundamental principles of natural justice besides in violation of the procedure contemplated 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. 5. 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 therefore, there is no violation of principles of RC,J W.P.NO.5026 OF 2025 5 natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, empowers the appointing authority to suspend or cancel a Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer's authorization. This action can be taken in the public interest, suomotu, or upon complaint, following an inquiry and for reasons recorded in writing. 8. In the decision in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, 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 1. 2015(4) ALT 572 RC,J W.P.NO.5026 OF 2025 6 procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 9. The impugned cancellation orders nowhere specifies that copy of the panchanama was supplied to the petitioner so as to enable her to file effective reply to the show cause notice. Further, though the dealer flatly denied variation between book balance and ground stock, 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 and the impugned proceedings nowhere states that an opportunity of fair hearing has been provided to the petitioner. 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. Adding to the above, the impugned orders came to be passed within two (02) days from the date of submission of explanation and the order impugned shows that the disciplinary authority did not even attempted to hold an enquiry and he has allowed himself to be swayed away by the report of the Tahsildar. 11. 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, the said orders suffers from the vice RC,J W.P.NO.5026 OF 2025 7 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. 12. This Court vide orders dated 24.02.2025 granted interim stay of the impugned orders. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings of respondent no.2 vide Rc.No.542/2025/C, dated 17.02.2025 and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducing enquiry afresh as envisaged under the Control Order, 2018. Till such time, the petitioner shall be continued as dealer of the subject F.P.Shop. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 18th February, 2026. . RR