APHC010145852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7669/2025 Between: 1. A SUBHASHINI, W/O A MADDILETY REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS , OCC. F.P. SHOP DEALER 0/O SHOP NO.1349036, CHINTALAPETA VILLAGE, DHONE MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHONE TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT 5. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DHONE TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT 2 RC,J W.P.NO.7669 OF 2025 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, KOCHERUVU VILLAGE DHONE TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL 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 topleased to issue a writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, specifically of respondent no.3 in cancelling the authorization of the FP Shop No.1349036,Chintalapeta, Dhone Mandal, Nandayal District, by issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.CS/D/594/2024 dated 11.03.2025 without conducting any preliminary enquiry and the action of the respondents in handing over the EPoS Machine of the FP Shop to the Respondent no.6 without following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to restore and continue the functioning of FP Shop no. 1349036,Chintalapeta , Dhone Mandal, Nandayal District and pass 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 pleased suspend the operation of proceedings vide Rc.No.CS/D/594/2024 dated 11.03.2025 issued by respondent no.3 pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 RC,J W.P.NO.7669 OF 2025 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 RC,J W.P.NO.7669 OF 2025 ORDER To declare the action of the respondents in cancelling the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop No.1349036, Chintalapeta, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, by issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.CS/D/594/2024 dated 11.03.2025 without conducting any preliminary enquiry and the action of the respondents in handing over the Epos Machine of the fair price shop to respondent No.6 as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Smt.Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. In elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the 3rd respondent herein, issued a show cause notice vide Rc.No.D/CS/594/2024, dated 14.11.2024, as to why the authorization should not be cancelled and accordingly sought explanation. On the very same date i.e., on 14.11.2024 basing on the report of Tahsildar dated 02.11.2024, the authorities have passed orders, wherein it was mentioned that the 5 RC,J W.P.NO.7669 OF 2025 authorization of the petitioner was cancelled and suspended (both) in respect of fair price shop No.1349036 of Chintalapeta village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, vide proceedings in Rc.No.D/CS/594/2024. 4. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed writ petition No.29072 of 2024, wherein this Court held that the impugned order was ex-facie illegal and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the said impugned order while granting liberty to the respondent authorities to proceed further on the show cause notice as per law. Thereafter, the very same officer (Revenue Divisional Officer/3rd respondent herein) issued the present impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2025 vide Rc.No.CS/D/594/2024 using the very same words cancelling and suspending the petitioner’s authorization, itself shows the authority has passed said order without proper application of mind. Further, in the impugned proceeding, 11.03.2025 the Revenue Divisional Officer has not mentioned anything about the report of Tahsildar dated 02.11.2024. Though it is stated that statements of the Revenue inspector and Village Revenue Officer who said to have been inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on the alleged date were recorded, but no opportunity of cross 6 RC,J W.P.NO.7669 OF 2025 examination was afforded to the petitioner. The order is as vague as it is. Though the law is very clear that while passing orders of cancellation of authorization of individual dealership, a proper enquiry has to be conducted, the same has been violated in the present case. If the said impugned order is allowed to subsist the rights of the petitioner would be affected and accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Vineeth Appsani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, while justifying the impugned proceedings, submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order. The petitioner instead of filing an appeal as contemplated under clause 24 of the Control Order 2018, filed the present writ petition and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the respective counsel. 7. As could be called out from the facts and material available on record, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without application of mind. The 7 RC,J W.P.NO.7669 OF 2025 impugned order is not clear as to whether it was passed for suspension or for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. The suspension would come pending enquiry and cancellation would come after enquiry. Further, in the earlier order dated 14.11.2024, it is stated that the report of the Tahsildar, dated 02.11.2024 has been considered but the same is not taken due note while passing the impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2025. Even in the said show cause notice, it was stated that the said report was enclosed. Proceeding with the enquiry in such manner should be deprecated, passing orders in such manner without following the procedure as contemplated is unsustainable. 8. As the impugned order is ex-facie illegal, it has to be set- aside. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that when the alternative remedy of appeal is provided invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not arise is untenable, as the impugned order has been passed without following the prescribed procedure of enquiry. When the authority has not followed the prescribed procedure and passed the orders, the same can be questioned by filing a writ petition. The said impugned orders are liable to be set-aside. 8 RC,J W.P.NO.7669 OF 2025 9. It is also noticed that, the earlier order was also set aside by this Court in W.P.No.29072 of 2024 on the ground that the order which was passed, was not clear as to whether it was passed for suspension or for cancellation. The authorities have, once again, passed similar order, due to which, petitioner has suffered mental agony by incurring considerable expenses for approaching this Court. 10. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to impose costs on the authority concerned who passed the impugned order. Accordingly, the authority concerned i.e., respondent No.3 shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. The state shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner and recover the same from the authority concerned who passed the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 29.01.2026 LSP