APHC010250722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13101/2025 Between: Boya Hussaini @ K Chinna Useni ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings dated 29.04.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent (Sub-Collector), the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, 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 the petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer for the Shop No.1302043 situated in Chinnabompalli village, Kosigi mandal vide proceedings dated 15.06.2010. He further submitted that, without issuing show cause notice inviting explanation and without conducting proper enquiry, the Sub-Collector (3rd respondent) had issued the impugned proceedings dated 29.04.2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. He further submitted that, this Court, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner, has ordered an interim stay of impugned proceedings. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders treating the interim orders as final orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 3rd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that, the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal before the Collector (Civil Supplies), filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that, in the event if this court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the authority concerned to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 29.04.2025 would indicate that Sri K.Lakshmanna and 4 others have given representation dated 23.04.2025 requesting to cancel the authorization of the petitioner for which the tahsildar has conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Sub- Collector. Based on the tahsildar’s report, the Sub-Collector has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings. As per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, the concerned authority is required to provide a fair price shop dealer with an opportunity to make a representation before passing any adverse orders, such as suspension or cancellation of their authorization. Even otherwise, the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross- examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence. 7. In the present case, the Sub-Collector, before issuing the impugned proceedings cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, has not given any opportunity to make a representation nor was an opportunity of being heard provided to him. As such the impugned proceedings are issued in violation of principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of and the impugned proceedings dated 29.04.2025 are hereby set aside. However, the authorities are not precluded from taking steps in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS