APHC010187282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9781/2025 Between: 1. G. NARAYANAMMA, W/O G. VENUGOPAL REDDY, 50 YEARS, SHOP NO. 1318005, OCCUPATION FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER THADAKANAPALLI VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS/JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings Appeal Case No.CS.3/6/2025 dated 07.04.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, confirming the Proceedings Rc.DT(LR)1415/2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop 2 Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No. 1318005, Thadakanapalli Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without considering the contentions in the appeal, 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 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 stay the Proceedings Appeal Case No.CS.3/6/2025 dated 07.04.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent as well as the proceedings in Rc.DT(LR)1415/ 2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent duly permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No. No. 1318005, Thadakanapalli Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Impugning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 07.04.2025 confirming the proceedings dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization was cancelled, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthirigala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1318005 of Thadakanapalli Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District in the year 2015 i.e., on 15.05.2014, and ever since, she has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders to the satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. While so, the authorities inspected the petitioner’s shop and on the alleged ground of variation in stock and basing on the recommendation of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar and his report dated 27.11.2024, a disciplinary action has been initiated and accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to submit her explanation as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 03.12.2024 denying the allegations, inter alia contending that she has not committed any irregularity as alleged in the show cause notice and in fact there are no variations in the stock. It is further submitted that the primary authority, along with the show cause notice, 4 did not supply the panchanama and the report of the Tahsildar. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not examine the inspecting authorities and the panchayatdars while conducting enquiry, particularly when the petitioner has denied the charges. However, passed orders cancelling the petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 23.12.2024 in Rc/DT(LR)1415/2024. 4. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector-2nd respondent herein vide Appeal No.CS.3/6/2025. In the said appeal, the petitioner specifically raised the ground that the original primary authority did not supply the panchanama and the report along with show- cause notice. Despite raising several grounds, the appellate authority, in a mechanical way, dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the orders of the original authority vide proceedings dated 07.04.2025. Questioning the proceedings of both authorities, the present writ petition is filed. 5. He further submitted that, this Court, by way of orders dated 21.04.2025, granted interim suspension of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. Both the authorities based their decision on the report submitted by the Tahsildar as well as panchanama. The said orders were passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Control Order, 2018, much less when the burden lies heavily on the respondents to prove the petitioner’s guilt. As such, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justifying the orders impugned, contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural 5 irregularity in passing the orders. A show cause notice was issued, invited explanation and also issued notice providing opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner appeared for personal hearing and basing on the material available on record and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the orders impugned were passed. It is further submitted that if this Court is inclined to interfere, the matter may be remitted back to the authorities concerned for fresh enquiry. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for the subject shop, wherein a show cause notice dated 29.11.2024 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer based on the report made by the Tahsildar. As could be seen from the record, an inspection was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer on the petitioner’s subject shop situated in Thadakanapalli Village on 26.11.2024. At the time of inspection, they noticed variations in essential commodities with regard to fortified rice, sugar packets, ragulu and red gram. The petitioner submitted her explanation denying the allegations and charges leveled against her. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer-the 3rd respondent herein passed orders cancelling the petitioner’s authorization basing on the report of the Tahsildar and panchanama. Assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector vide Appeal No.CS/3/6/2025 dated 07.04.2025. In the grounds of appeal, the petitioner specifically raised 6 the ground that the preliminary authority did not supply the panchanama or the report of the Tahsildar. Despite raising such legal ground, the Joint Collector (appellate authority) dismissed the petitioner’s appeal by simply stating that the dealer has just denied the charge and requested to drop further action. In the light of the same, the explanation offered by the dealer is considered as an attempt to escape from the gravity of the charge and accordingly held that the allegation against the dealer is held proved and that there is no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop, and accordingly passed orders. As seen from the orders impugned, the authorities have based their decision by relying on the panchanama and the Tahsildar’s report. 9. As stated supra, despite raising a ground before the appellate authority about the non supply of the report and panchanama, the authority has not dealt with the said ground at all. 10. It is a well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents extensively, MP Jain & SN Jain’s treatise on Principles of Administrative Law [MP Jain & SN Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (LexisNexis, 8th ed.) at 490-91.] notes that: “If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given a opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural 7 justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. (emphasis supplied). 11. In the said view of the settled principle and as stated supra, the authorities have based their decision relying on the Tahsildar’s report and panchanama, which were admittedly not supplied to the petitioner. The orders impugned are vitiated and have been passed in clear violation of audi alteram partem. 12. In the said view of the facts, both the orders impugned are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the original authority for conducting fresh enquiry. Till such exercise, the petitioner shall continue as a fair price shop dealer in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 14. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to the interim directions of this Court, the petitioner is running Fair Price Shop and while running, he has committed certain other irregularities. For the said irregularities, an independent show cause notice has been issued, enquiry has been conducted and the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled. As the same constitutes an independent cause of action, the petitioner has filed another writ petition, and as irregularities are different from those in the present case, there is no necessity to take due note of the same in the present case, and the petitioner can pursue the same. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02.03.2026. JLV 9 260 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9781/2025 Date: 02.03.2026 JLV