APHC010244192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12297/2025 Between: 1. P. SHILPA,, W/O. P.SIVALINGAPPA, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO.1261034 R/O. YARRAGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, AMARAPURAMMANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR 2 DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, AMARAPURAMU MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE 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 a writ, order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.61/2025C dated 24.04.2025 by terminating the petitioner to hold F.P Shop .No.1261034, Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur Districtwithout there being any valid reason, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P Shop .No.1261034, Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur Districtand 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s F.P Shop.No.1261034, Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings of 4th respondent vide 3 Rc.No.61/2025C dated 24.04.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: Impugning the proceedings vide RC.No.61/2025C, dated 24.04.2025, issued by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, terminating the petitioner’s authorization as a Fair Price shop dealer of shop No.1261034, Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District (erstwhile Anantapur District), the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that show cause notices dated 25.01.2025 & 23.03.2025 were issued to the petitioner, however, the respondent authorities have failed to supply a copy of the 5th respondent-Tahsildar’s report vide 4 RC.No.424/2024, dated 17.11.2024 to the petitioner, particularly when the 4th respondent based his decision by relying on the said proceedings. Non-supply of the said report along with the show- cause notice, particularly when reliance was placed on, it amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, in the impugned proceedings, the 4th respondent stated that he had issued notice to the Panchayatdars and recorded their statements. However, the proceedings do not disclose that they were examined and their statements were recorded in the presence of the petitioner. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross-examine them. Even otherwise, the authority also did not consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the judgment of B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, and also on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025. 1 2015(3) ALD 617 5 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while justifying the impugned order, contended that the authority has rightly passed the orders impugned. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, explanation was submitted, statements of the Panchayatdars were recorded, and a reasoned order was passed thereon. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the ground now urged with regard to non-supply of the document (the Tahsildar’s report) was never raised in the earlier round of litigation or any pleading to that effect in the present writ petition. Further, against the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector by virtue of Clause 24(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. As such, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the orders impugned and the writ petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all legal grounds need not be pleaded and can be urged at the 6 time of hearing. However, it is a bounden duty cast upon the Revenue Divisional Officer, being the original authority, to supply the documents to the petitioner. He submitted that when there is a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice on the face of the impugned proceedings, the question of approaching the appellate authority does not arise. As such, the writ petition is very much maintainable, and accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1261034, Yarraguntapalli Village, Amarapuramu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. Upon receiving credible information, the 5th respondent, in the presence of Panchayatdars, inspected the subject shop and noticed certain irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities, for which a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was booked and the stocks were seized. Based on the report of the Tahsildar dated 17.11.2024, the 4th respondent- RDO issued show-cause notices dated 25.01.2025 & 22.03.2025 7 to the petitioner, framing two charges and seeking an explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 29.03.2025 and after considering the same, the impugned proceedings dated 24.04.2025 came to be passed. 8. A perusal of the record goes to show that prior to issuance of the show-cause notice dated 22.03.2025, a show-cause notice dated 25.01.2025 had been issued, for which the petitioner submitted explanation on 31.01.2025, wherein a cancellation order was passed vide RC.No.61/2025/C, dated 22.02.2025. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5244 of 2025 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 03.03.2025, set aside the said proceedings, directing the respondents to follow the procedure by giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 9. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions of the case, pursuant to the orders passed in the writ petition referred supra, the authorities have issued a show-cause notice inviting explanation, and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned orders. A 8 perusal of the impugned orders would go to show that the authority examined the Panchayatdars by issuing notice dated 11.04.2025 and recorded their statements, and by taking the said statements and the explanation given by the petitioner into consideration, once again passed the impugned proceedings terminating the petitioner’s authorization as a Fair Price Shop dealer. 10. The impugned proceedings do not show that the RDO has recorded the statements of the Panchayatdars in the presence of the petitioner. Further, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross-examine them. Mere recording the statements in the absence of the petitioner, and not providing any opportunity to cross-examine, is not a proper enquiry. Further, the statement of the petitioner was also not recorded. When the burden heavily lies on the respondents to prove the guilt on the petitioner, the authorities have to conduct enquiry but in the present case, the authority have miserably failed to conduct proper enquiry. As such, the impugned proceedings are passed once again in clear violation of Audi Alteram Partem principle. 9 11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5244 of 2025 and a Division Bench in the judgments referred supra have clearly held as to how the enquiry has to be conducted, which was not followed in the present case. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 12. When this Court specifically directed the authorities to follow certain procedure, and again the officer passes the same order, and again the petitioner is driven to approach this Court by filing a writ petition, the cycle will be repeated endlessly. In this process, the petitioner can never get her grievance redressed. Though this Court is a Court of law under the law of the land, can it be said that the majesty of law is being upheld by allowing officers to pass orders without reference to the law laid down in the cases? If this sort of persistent disregard by the officers of the State is permitted by the Court, the rule of administration would be jeopardized. 13. Allowing the officers to pass such orders, in the opinion of this Court, would not amount to administering justice, but would perpetuate injustice done by the executive system. In that view of 10 the matter, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- on the 4th respondent-RDO. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.04.2025, issued by the 4th respondent, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the RDO concerned for conducting proper enquiry as per the guidelines laid down by this Court referred supra and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The State shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and recover the same from the 4th respondent-RDO concerned. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02.02.2026 ANS 11 254 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12297/2025 Date: 02.02.2026 ANS