APHC010139172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 15619/2020 Between: 1. B.Y.K. DHARMARAJU,, S/O B.Y.K. HANUMANTHAPPA, SHOP NO.1326037, 54 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, MULUGUNDAM VILLAGE, ASPARI 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 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ASPARI 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 2 High Court may be pleased topleased to issue, a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Rc.CS3/264/2019 dated 13.02.2020 issued by the respondent No.3 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No.1326037, Mulugundam Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Appeal Petition No.CS3/114/2020 dated 03.07.2020 as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without conducting the enquiry and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 Appeal Petition No.CS3/114/2020 dated 03.07.2020, Rc.CS3/264/2019 dated 13.02.2020 issued by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively duly permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No.1326037, Mulugundam Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7349/2024 Between: 1. B Y K DHARMARAJU, S/O B.Y.K. HANUMANTHAPPA, SHOP NO. 1326037, 55 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, MULUGUNDAM VILLAGE, ASPARI 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 AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (CS), KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATTIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, , ASPARI 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 topleased to issue, a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4TH respondent in passing orders in proceedings Rc.M.1166/2023 dated 15.03.2024, directing the 5TH respondent not to issue commodities to petitioner Fair Price Shop No.1326037, 4 Mulugundam Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the and 21 respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner Fair Price Shop and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 please to stay the proceedings Rc.M.1166/2023 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the 4 respondent duly directing the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner Fair Price Shop No. 1326037, Mulugundam Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass 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: 5 COMMON ORDER : These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: W.P.No.15619 of 2020 “....to issue, a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Rc.CS3/264/2019 dated 13.02.2020 issued by the respondent No.3 in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No.1326037, Mulugundam Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Appeal Petition No.CS3/114/2020 dated 03.07.2020 as illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without conducting the enquiry and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the...” W.P.No.7349 of 2024 “....to issue, a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4TH respondent in passing orders in proceedings Rc.M.1166/2023 dated 15.03.2024, directing the 5TH respondent not to issue commodities to petitioner Fair Price Shop No.1326037, Mulugundam Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the and 21 respondents to 6 supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner Fair Price Shope...” Since the petitioner in both writ petitions is one and the same, and the cause raised in both writ petitions is with regard to the same Fair Price Shop, these two writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1326037, Mulugundam village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District, vide proceedings Rc.M.558/2015, dated 06.05.2015. The petitioner‟s authorization has been renewed from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from any corner. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings Rc.CS3/264/2019 dated 06.09.2019 suspended the petitioner‟s authorization based on the report of the 4th respondent dated 12.08.2019. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 06.09.2019, calling for an explanation duly framing 5 charges against the petitioner. Challenging the said suspension order, the petitioner was 7 constrained to file W.P.No.13361 of 2019, the said writ petition was allowed by following direction:- “The instructions dated 09.09.2019 does not reflect that the variation in the stock is within the permissible limits or not, except stating that variation is 2.34 quintals excess. Whether 2.34 quintals of excess stock is within permissible limits or not is not stated in the instructions. Therefore, the order dated 06.09.2019, vide Rc.CS3/264/2019, is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities may conduct enquiry if they found any material with regard to irregularity. Till that period, the respondent authorities are directed to supply the essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner with law.” 4. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.13361 of 2019 dated 12.09.2019, the 3rd respondent passed orders vide proceedings Rc.CS3/264/2019 dated 13.02.2020 cancelling the petitioner‟s authorization without conducting any enquiry as required under the Control Order, which was further confirmed in an appeal vide impugned proceedings. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. When the present W.P.No.15619 of 2020 came up for admission on 22.06.2024, this Court granted the interim order. The relevant order passed as under:- “...Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned cancellation order is passed without conducting proper enquiry as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System 8 (Control) Order, 2018 and the orders of this Court in 2015(6) ALD 359 and 2105(3) ALD 617 and the same was mechanically confirmed by the 2nd respondent in appeal petition by orders dated 03.07.2020. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the cancellation order is passed in accordance with law and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for grant of interim order. Accordingly, there shall be interim stay as prayed for”. 6. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner was continued to run the said fair price shop. But, however vide proceedings dated 15.03.2024, the 4th respondent directed the 5th respondent not to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner‟s fair price shop. As such, the petitioner was once again constrained to file W.P.No.7349 of 2024. 7. When the matter came up for admission on 22.03.2024, this Court passed the following interim order: “For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and considering the submissions made, there shall be an interim direction as prayed for.” 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 9 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on oral instructions has stated that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in writ petition No.7349 of 2024, the petitioner is continued to run the subject fair price shop. 6. The 4th respondent has filed counter-affidavit reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner inter-alia it is stated that as per instructions of the Tahsildar, Aspari, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Aspari and Village Revenue Officer, Mulugundam Village, have inspected the FP Shop No. 1326037 of Mulugundam Village of Aspari Mandal on 07.08.2019, which was run by Sri B.Y.K.Dharmaraju. There is a variation of PDS Rice 2.35 Qtls, Sugar 0.69 Kgs and Redgram Dal 0.52 Kgs excess in the ground balance. The inspection team have conducted Panchanama before the Panchayatdars and seized the stock and handed over the same to the Village Revenue Officer, Mulugundam village for safe custody. The variation allowable is upto 1.5% only. Whereas, in this case the violation is beyond permissible limit as per Clause 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. The FP Shop dealer also violated 29(a), 12(a), 12(m), 12(n), 8(14) and 10(d) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, as such, the Joint Collector, Kurnool, has suspended the fair price 10 shop dealer for Shop No.1326037 of Mulugundam village vide proceedings No.Rc.CS3/264/2019 dt.6.9.2019 with the following charges- Charge No.1:- There is a variation of PDS Rice 2.35 Qtls, Sugar 0.69 Kgs and Redgram Dal 0.52 Kgs excess in the ground balance, thereby violated provisions of Clause 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Charge No.2:- The dealer not exhibited Stocks cum Price board in the FP Shop, thereby violated provisions of Clause 12(n) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Charge No.3:- That the dealer is not maintaining timings prescribed by the Govt. thereby violated provisions of Clause 8(14) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Charge No.4:- The dealer distributed ECs to the cardholders in less weighment thereby violated provisions of Clause 10(d) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 Charge No.5:- The dealer distributed ECs to the cardholders in higher prices thereby violated provisions of Clause 12(m) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. 11 Charge No.6:- The F.P.Shop run by the Father-in-Law (i.e..) Binami Dealer thereby violated provisions of the Clause 12(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. The permissible variation is only 1.5% as per Clause 29(a) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. Further as per 8(4) under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. "The appointing authority may, at any point of time in the public interest or on Suo-Moto or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause". 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 13.02.2020, it can be observed that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, has submitted a report stating that a letter has been sent to the petitioner through the Tahsildar, Aspari, to attend the enquiry before the RDO, Adoni on 14.11.2019, inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry. He has submitted his explanation on 18.11.2019 explaining the reasons for the shortage of 2.34 quintals of PDS rice and 0.69 kgs sugar excess 12 quantity of sugar and for the other commodities also. But however, it appears that no enquiry has been conducted in pursuance of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. However, the 3rd respondent passed the cancellation orders duly stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is false and evading in nature, solely relied upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar and the Panchanama reported by the officers in the presence of mediators. 8. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-Clause(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 which has been held to be mandatory by this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others 1 observed as extracted hereunder: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 13 However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental Ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra. 10. An „enquiry‟ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case 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 card 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 licensing/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.” 14 8. In view of the above discussion and the observation in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others (supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings vide Rc.CS3/264/2019 dated13.02.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set-aside. 9. In view of the same, these writ petitions are allowed, by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 13.02.2020 and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for conducting an enquiry after issuing a fresh notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such time, the respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner. The entire process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :05.01.2026 LSP