APHC010150042023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. B ARUNA, W/O B.NAGENDRA AGE.34 YEARS, OCC. F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1057055, VELTHURUCHENU VILLAGE, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DIST., AT CHITTOOR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANER TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 5. M BUJJI W/O M BA DEALER, R/O VELTHURUCHENE VILLAGE, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, DT.30.10.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.2 OF 2023. Petition under Article circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.E/ cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of the of F.P Shop No.1057055, Velthuruchenu Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor Dist., 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7758/2023 B ARUNA, W/O B.NAGENDRA AGE.34 YEARS, OCC. F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1057055, VELTHURUCHENU VILLAGE, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. THE COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DIST., AT CHITTOOR. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANER TOWN, THE TAHSILDAR, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. M BUJJI W/O M BALAJI, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC. F.P.SHOP DEALER, R/O VELTHURUCHENE VILLAGE, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, DT.30.10.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN ...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 issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.E/1296/2022 dt.2 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of the of F.P Shop No.1057055, Velthuruchenu Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor Dist., RC,J w.p.No.7758 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI B ARUNA, W/O B.NAGENDRA AGE.34 YEARS, OCC. F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1057055, VELTHURUCHENU VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DIST., AT CHITTOOR. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANER TOWN, THE TAHSILDAR, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. LAJI, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC. F.P.SHOP DEALER, R/O VELTHURUCHENE VILLAGE, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, DT.30.10.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN ...RESPONDENT(S): 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the 1296/2022 dt.2-3-2023 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of the of F.P Shop No.1057055, Velthuruchenu Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor Dist., RC,J w.p.No.7758 of 2023 2 without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order dt.2-3-2023 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 Suspend the operation of the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.E/1296/2022 dt.2-3-2023 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner for the FP Shop No.1057055, Velthuruchenu Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor Dist., by continuing the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 implead the Petitioner as Respondent No.5 in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M MM SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: RC,J w.p.No.7758 of 2023 3 ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the order issued by respondent no.3 vide Roc.E/1296/2022, dated 02.03.2023 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of the F.P.Shop No.1057055, Velthuruchenu village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittor District. 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri VineethAppasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, and Ms.T.Radha Rani, learned counsel, representing Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 3. Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the disciplinary proceedings having been initiated and the impugned orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of the F.P.shop having been passed not on a separate report but based on the report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, is impermissible under law and therefore, the impugned order are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.500 of 2020, dated 08.01.2020. 4. On the other hand, Sri VineethAppasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on counter, justified the impugned order being well considered and free from procedural lapses. He would further contend that Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public RC,J w.p.No.7758 of 2023 4 Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 provides for an appeal against the impugned order, but, the petitioner, by bypassing the said efficacious alternate remedy, preferred the writ petition, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Whereas, Ms.T.Radha Rani, learned counsel for respondent no.5, submitted that since the writ petition is filed bypassing the alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal, the same is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal. 6. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that respondent no.5, a temporary dealer, will have no locus or right to oppose the claim made by regular dealer for restoration of authorization of FP shop. 7. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The petitioner was the permanent dealer for the subject Fair Price Shop. On the ground that some variations are found during inspection of FP shop between the ground stock and book balance, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, for which an explanation was submitted by the petitioner and upon considering the said explanation the impugned orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner for subject FP shop came to be passed. 9. The impugned proceedings clearly states that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on the 6A report RC,J w.p.No.7758 of 2023 5 submitted by the Tahsildar, Bangarupalem vide Roc.A/249/2022, dated 30.11.2022. The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings is extracted hereunder: “In the circumstances, the Collector (CS) Chittoor vide reference 2nd cited ordered that the case was taken on file Under Section 6A of the EC Act, 1955 and the seized stock be allotted to the Tahsildar, Bangarupalem and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaner to take disciplinary action against the F.P.shop dealer as per rules. Show cause notice was issued to Smt. Aruna, W/o. B.Nagendra, F.P.Shop dealer, Velthuruchenu vide this office Roc.No.1292/2022, Dt.06.02.2023. She has submitted explanation that she is an illiterate and sole bread winner to her family members with the income provided by the Government for the FP shop dealer.” 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated on a separate report to be sent by Tahsildar but not on the on the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. 11. Clause 20(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is relevant for the present purpose and the same is extracted hereunder: “The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of the order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6-A(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions and authorization.” RC,J w.p.No.7758 of 2023 6 11. From the above clause, two separate reports are required to be submitted by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. But, as per the impugned proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the impugned orders were passed basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, there is flagrant violation of the procedure specified in Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018. 12. In the orders of this Court dated 08.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.500 of 2020, this Court while dealing with similar situation, held at para 10 of the order thus: “10. As per Clause ‘q’ of Circular Memo issued by Commissioner, Civil Supplies in No.21/100/2015-AD.1 PP&CCS , dated 28.09.2015, proceedings undser Section 6-A of E.C.Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are liable for confiscation or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorization to be issued, based on report. In view of memo and requirement under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order passed by second respondent cannot be sustained, consequently, the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018.” 13. In the instant case also, since the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the report under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, the same is illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of the Control Order,2018 and therefore, is liable to be set aside. RC,J w.p.No.7758 of 2023 7 14. In view of the observations made above, since the impugned orders came to be passed contrary to the Control Order, 2018, bypassing the alternate remedy of preferring an appeal is not a bar for filing the writ petition. Further, the respondent no.5, a temporary dealer, has no locus to oppose the claim made by the petitioner for restoration of his authorization for FP shop. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order vide Roc.E/1296/2022, dated 02.03.2023passed by respondent no.3, cancelling the authorization of petitioner, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE: 29TH day of January, 2026. RR