APHC010106022020 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: 6449/2020 Between: 1. D.RAMAKRISHNA,, S/O. D.MAREPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 0CC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.1285124, SANTHI NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU CITY AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ANANTHAPURAMU TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. ...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 order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization in Rc.No.K3/2543/ 2019 dated 27.02.2020 of the petitioner Fair Price shop No.1285124 of Santhi Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District basing on the 6A report submitted by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.K3/2543/ 2019 dated 27.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent by permitting the petitioner to supply the Essential Commodities to the cardholders from the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.1285124 of Santhi Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Impugning the proceedings of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapuramu vide Rc.No.K3/2543/2019 dated 27.02.2020, thereby cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization vide Shop No.1285124 of Anantapuramu Town and Mandal, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms.Priya, learned counsel, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. In elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer vide Shop No.1285124 of Shanthi Nagar, Anantapur Town and Mandal, Anantapur District, for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders and, ever since, to the utmost satisfaction of the cardholders, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities. While so, a show cause notice was issued in Rc.No.K3/2543/2019, dated 01.10.2019 on the ground that variations in the stock were noticed upon inspection made by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar on 27.08.2019. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation through counsel on 26.02.2020 denying the allegations and, inter-alia, requested the authorities to examine the inspecting authority who visited the shop. 4 4. However, the Joint Collector-the 2nd respondent herein passed impugned orders cancelling petitioner’s authorization without taking the explanation into consideration and without examining the inspecting authorities. The Joint Collector, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, based his decision on the statements of the inspecting authority and the report of the Tahsildar, without supplying the same along with show cause notice. Further, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not at all taken into consideration and the same has been stated so by the Joint collector in his order. The Joint collector having noticed the request of the petitioner to examine the inspecting authorities, did not do so. Basing his decision solely on the statement of the inspecting authority and the Tahsildar’s report is unsustainable. Cancellation of authorization is nothing but a major punishment. In the said circumstances, basic enquiry has to be conducted by the authorities by examining the petitioner, witnesses, if any, and the officials, but in the present case, the said process was not followed by the authorities. As such, the order impugned is unsustainable, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and accordingly is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter, submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the orders impugned. The respondent authority has issued show cause notice, invited explanation and passed detailed speaking order. In the said circumstances, the petitioner 5 cannot contend that the authority has violated the basic principles of natural justice. He further contend that, even otherwise, an appeal is provided under Clause 24(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (herein after referred to “Control Order, 2018”), and without availing such alternative remedy, invoking writ jurisdiction does not arise. On that ground also, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that, however, the petitioner’s wife herself is now running the Fair Price Shop on temporary basis. The petitioner has also admitted the same. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. It is not in dispute that a show cause notice was issued by the respondent-Joint Collector alleging charge against the petitioner to the effect that Fair Price Shop dealer failed to make available the balance of commodities as shown in the e-POS generated printouts for cross-verification of stock, and that variations in stock relating to PDS rice, Sugar, MDM rice, MDMRG dal were noticed at the time of inspection. As the same amounts to violation of Control Order, 2018, a notice was issued, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 26.02.2020. In the said explanation, the petitioner made a request to examine the inspecting authorities and the same was duly taken note of by the Joint Collector, as reflected in the proceedings impugned, however, did not examine them. Further, the authority has categorically stated that the petitioner’s explanation sent through his advocate 6 was not taken into consideration on the ground that the variations are not permissible variations as per Clause 29-A. The respondent cannot say that the petitioner’s explanation has not been taken into consideration; the authority ought to have taken the same into consideration and give cogent reasons for discarding the grounds raised in the said explanation. 8. As could be seen from the cancellation order, the authority has based its decision on the report received from the Tahsildar under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In this regard, there are certain guidelines framed for dealing the cases on alleged grounds of irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealers vide C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015. The said guidelines have been framed by duly taking into consideration the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.30126 of 2014 & batch. 9. Clause (f) of the said guidelines is appropriate for the present case and for quick reference, the same is extracted hereunder: “f) A separate report shall be submitted to the authorization issuing authority to initiate disciplinary action against the dealer concerned as the appointing authority can initiate disciplinary action under the provisions of the A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 viz., for suspension/cancellation of authorization/forfeiture of Security deposit.” 10. By virtue of the said circular, before initiating disciplinary proceedings a report has to be obtained from the Tahsildar making a preliminary enquiry but in the present case no separate report as required was submitted. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cardholders were not examined. If at all, the cardholders are examined, the petitioner will get an 7 opportunity to cross examine them. Cancellation of authorization being a major punishment, the authorities ought to have conducted basic enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025. Though the impugned order shows that there are some complaints made by the complainants, the details/particulars of the said complainants are not mentioned, nor were they examined. 11. For the reasons stated supra, the order impugned is unsustainable and contrary to Audi Alteram Partem principle and is liable to be set aside. As the petitioner’s wife is admittedly running the shop and, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, they are in good terms, no notice is required to be issued. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, vide Rc.No.K3/2543/2019 dt.27.02.2020. The matter is remitted back to the authorities back to the authorities for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. 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 8 265 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6449/2020 Date: 03rd February, 2026 JLV 9