APHC010214302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] SUNDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10715/2025 Between: 1. SMT. BONI SIMHACHALAM,, W/O BONI GURUVULU, HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC- F.P SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0326035, R/O. LINGANNAPETA VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent no. 4 and 5 in seizing the stock of the petitioners F.P shop bearing F.P Shop No. 0326035, situated at Lingannapeta Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pursuant to the mediators report dated 05.04.2025 and taking steps to cancel the petitioners authorization without issuing show cause notice or conducting enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to resume the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner for his Fair Price Shop (FPS) No, F.P Shop No. 0326035, situated at Lingannapeta Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by staying all further proceedings pursuant to the mediators report dated 05.04.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S B V RAMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 O R D E R: To declare the action of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in seizing the stock of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop bearing No. 0326035, situated at Lingannapeta Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pursuant to the mediators’ report dated 05.04.2025, and initiating steps to cancel the petitioner’s authorization without issuing a show cause notice or conducting an enquiry, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri T.S.B.V. Rama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions raised in the writ affidavit, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No. 0326035 situated at Lingannapeta Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in the year 2009, and accordingly authorization was issued. Ever since then, the petitioner has been running the shop without any complaints from any quarter. 4. While so, a mediators’ report dated 05.04.2025 was served on the petitioner, seeking an explanation on the ground that certain variations were found in the stock of Fortified PDS rice, which was served on 21.04.2025. The respondent authorities cannot call for an explanation merely by supplying the 4 mediators’ report without issuing a proper show cause notice framing specific charges. Questioning the said action, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. This Court, on 28.04.2025, directed the respondent authorities to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No. 0326035 in Visakhapatnam District, protecting the interests of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents so far and, therefore, prayed that appropriate orders be passed treating the interim order as the final order. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner can submit an explanation to the said report, as the report clearly mentions the variation in stock. However, he fairly submitted that a show cause notice ought to have been issued by the respondent authorities. If this Court is inclined to interfere with the action of the respondent authorities, liberty may be granted to them to proceed in accordance with law. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The submissions and the record indicate that an inspection was conducted on 05.04.2025 by the Inspecting authorities at the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop, during which certain variations in the stock of Fortified PDS rice were found. Accordingly, the same was recorded and a mediators’ report was prepared. 5 10. It is the case of the petitioner that, without issuing any show cause notice or framing charges, the respondent authorities merely supplied the mediators’ report and asked the petitioner to submit an explanation in order to conduct an enquiry. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, calling for an explanation without issuing a show cause notice does not arise. 11. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as the audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umanath Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1. 12. In the present case, as admitted by the respondents, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, proceeding against the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization merely by supplying the mediators’ report is unjustifiable. Such action is illegal and arbitrary. 1 (2009) 12 SCC 40-43 6 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to follow the procedure in accordance with law by issuing a proper show cause notice, inviting an explanation from the petitioner by granting sufficient time, and thereafter conducting a proper enquiry in accordance with law. 14. Till such exercise is completed, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop. 15. With the above directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 16th February, 2026 cbn 7 232 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.10715 of 2025 16th February, 2026 cbn