APHC010182192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. R KAMALAMMA, W/O RAMAVATH BALU NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO. 1204011, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, BODISANIPALLI VILLAGE, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTAKAL, DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the natur Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025 dated 25.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9732/2025 R KAMALAMMA, W/O RAMAVATH BALU NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO. 1204011, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, BODISANIPALLI VILLAGE, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. THE COLLECTOR CS, JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTAKAL, THE TAHSILDAR, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring Proceedings Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025 dated 25.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No. RC,J W.P.No.9732 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI R KAMALAMMA, W/O RAMAVATH BALU NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SHOP NO. 1204011, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, BODISANIPALLI VILLAGE, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR ...PETITIONER ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THE COLLECTOR CS, JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR THE TAHSILDAR, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more e of Writ of Mandamus, declaring Proceedings Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025 dated 25.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No. RC,J W.P.No.9732 of 2025 2 1204011, Bodisanipalli Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without considering the factual aspect that the petitioner, without following the procedure and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2018 and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders_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 to stay the Proceedings Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025 dated 25.03.2025 issued by the 3 respondent duly permitting the petitioner to distribute essential commodities to the card holders in respect of Fair Price Shop No. No.1204011, Bodisanipalli Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.No.9732 of 2025 3 ORDER The writ petition has been filed questioning the proceedings vide Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025, dated 25.03.2025 of respondent no.3 cancelling the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.1204011, Bodisanipalli Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur 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 basing on the report of the respondent no.4-Tahsildar dated 09.01.2025 alleging that variation in stock was found during inspection, the respondent no.3-the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued show cause notice dated 12.02.2025 calling for explanation and in response the petitioner submitted detailed explanation denying the charges, however, the respondent no.3, without application of mind and without considering the explanation, with a prejudiced mind, cancelled the authorization of the petitioner vide the impugned proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioner that, respondent no.3, without supplying copy of the panchanama, without conducting enquiry and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, passed the impugned orders and therefore, the impugned proceedings having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice RC,J W.P.No.9732 of 2025 4 besides in violation of the procedure contemplated under law, are liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend 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, 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 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 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.9732 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 cas 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.” 1. 2015(4) ALT 572 RC,J W.P.No.9732 of 2025 6 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 order 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 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. RC,J W.P.No.9732 of 2025 7 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings of respondent no.3 vide Rc.No.CS/B/100/2025, dated 25.03.2025 and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducing enquiry afresh as envisaged under the Control Order, 2018. It is brought to the notice that somebody is appointed as a temporary dealer for supply of essential commodities. The authority shall conclude the enquiry within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, or else the petitioner shall be appointed 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 DATE: 21st day of January, 2026. RR