APHC010241912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12778/2025 Between: 1. P MADHAVI LATHA, W/O P. LAKSHMANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, F.P NO. 1348025 CHINNA PODILLA VILLAGE, PEAPULLY MANDAL NANDYALA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTORCIVIL SUPPLIES, NANDYALA DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (CIVIL SUPPLIES) DHONE, NANDYALA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, PEAPULLY MANDAL, NANDYALA 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 2 may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3RD respondent Rc. CS. 391/2024 dated 06-03-2025 cancelling the writ petitioners authorization for Fair Price Shop no. 1348025, Chinna Podilla village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District without any valid reason as illegal. arbitrary and violation of principle of natural and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the writ petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer for shop no. 1348025, Chinna Podilla village. Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District 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 to direct the 3RD and 4th respondents to continue to supply the stocks to the petitioner for Fair Price Shop no. 1348025, Chinna Podilla village, Peapully Mandal, Nanydal District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the notice dated 06.03.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS.391/2024 cancelling the petitioners authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1348025, Chinna Podilla Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District, without mentioning valid reasons, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice vide Rc.CS.391/2024 dated 06.03.2025 and on the very same date i.e., on 06.03.2025 vide proceedings in Rc.CS.391/2024 cancelled and suspended the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop No.1348025 of Chinna Podilla Village, Peapully Mandal, Nandyal District, without following law. He further submitted that earlier the authorities concerned have passed very similar order suspending the authorization of the petitioner on 27.08.2024. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed writ petition No.22206 of 2024, wherein this Court on 19.10.2024 granted interim order suspending the proceedings impugned therein. Thereafter, the very same officer (Revenue Divisional Officer/3rd respondent herein) issued the present impugned proceedings dated 4 06.03.2025 vide Rc.CS.391/2024 using the words cancelling and suspending the petitioner’s authorization, which itself shows the authority has passed said order without proper application of mind. He further submitted that in the present impugned proceeding, dated 06.03.2025 the Revenue Divisional Officer has mentioned about the report of Tahsildar, dated 13.02.2025 which was not supplied to the petitioner. The order is as vague as it is. Though the law is very clear that while passing orders of cancellation of authorization of individual dealership, a proper enquiry has to be conducted, the same has been violated in the present case. If the said impugned order is allowed to subsist the rights of the petitioner would be affected and accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appsani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, while justifying the impugned proceedings, submitted that there is no illegality nor procedural irregularity in the order passed. The petitioner instead of filing an appeal as contemplated under clause 24 of the Control Order 2018, filed the present writ petition and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the respective counsel. 5 6. It is evident that the impugned order has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without application of mind. Whether the order passed is for suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization is not clear. The suspension would come pending enquiry and cancellation would come after enquiry. 7. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority concerned failed to adhere to the fundamental principles of enquiry while passing the orders impugned. No doubt the enquiry need not be elaborate as in case of a disciplinary proceedings against a government servant but it shall follow the basic requirement of enquiry, which, in the opinion of this Court must be as described infra. Further, the concerned authority, has to supply all the reports to the dealer, which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer and also to examine the complainants or the mediators as the case may be. 8. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner the 3rd respondent has relied on the report of the Tahsildar which was not at all supplied to the petitioner herein. Without adhering to such procedure, issuing orders in such a manner amounts to passing orders behind the back of the dealer. 9. As the impugned order is ex-facie illegal, it has to be set-aside. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that when 6 the alternative remedy of appeal is provided invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not arise is untenable, as the impugned order has been passed without following the prescribed procedure of enquiry and in flagrant violation of Audi Alteram Partem principle. When the authority has not followed the prescribed procedure while passing the orders, the same can be questioned by filing a writ petition. The said impugned orders are liable to be set-aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned orders dated 06.03.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned authority for conducting proper enquiry as contemplated under law. Till completion of such enquiry, the petitioner shall continue as dealer of the subject fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 11th February, 2026 RKS