1 APHC010282672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14278/2025 Between: 1. R.Sekhar, S/o K.Ramaswamy Mandadi age- 65 years, occ- f.p. Shop dealer of Shop no.1049016, Thugundram village Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor dist. ...petitioner and 1. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By Its Principle Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur dist. 2. The Joint Collector Cs, Chittoor town, Chittoor dist. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor town, Chittoor dist. 4. The Tahsildar, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor dist. ...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 to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis G/345/2025 dt- 14-5-2025 cancelling the petitioners authorization in respect of the F.P Shop No. 1049016, Thugundram Village, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order dt- 14-5-2025 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass 2 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 Suspend the operation of the order issued by the 3'"^ respondent vide D.Dis G/345/2025 dt: 14-5-2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No. 1049016, Thugundram Village, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor Dist., by continuing the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 vacate the Interim order dated 25.06.2025 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in W.P. No.14278 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 14.05.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) vide D.Dis G/345/2025 wherein the petitioner’s authorization for shop No.1049016 was cancelled. 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, 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, basing on the tahsildar’s report dated 21.03.2025 on allegations of variations in stock & others, the RDO has issued 3 show cause notice on 25.04.2025, to which the petitioner had submitted his explanation dated 03.05.2025. He further submitted that, without considering the said explanation, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing and without conducting proper enquiry, the RDO (3rd respondent) had issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. He further submitted that, the document leading to the charges, such as panchanama, tahsildar’s report were not supplied to the petitioner so as to enable him to file effective reply and that the authorities did not conduct enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, ‘control order, 2018) and therefore, there is violation of fundamental principles of natural justice besides in violation of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. He further submitted that, however, by virtue of the interim orders passed by this court dated 25.06.2025, the petitioner is continuing as fair price shop dealer. Accordingly prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings. 4. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, justified the impugned proceedings being flawless and does not suffer from any procedural infirmity. He would further contend that the petitioner has been given a fair opportunity of submitting explanation, as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that, the petitioner, 4 instead of filing appeal before the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that, while cancelling his authorization with regard to subject shop, the authorities have not provided him with the documents relied by them nor conducted proper enquiry and that his explanation was not considered at all. It is well settled that, if an adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration and decides the matter against the party, the decision is vitiated for its amounts to denial of real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him/her. 7. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner’s authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-clause (5) of Control order, 2018. In the decision in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, this Court held thus: 1. 2015(4) ALT 572 5 “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 car 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 licencing/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.” 8. The impugned cancellation orders nowhere specifies that copy of the panchanama and tahsildar’s report was supplied to the petitioner so as to enable him to file effective reply. Further, though the dealer flatly denied allegations made against him, the mediators, who are present at the time of inspection and preparation of panchanama, were not examined. Moreover, the sworn statement of the dealer was not at all recorded nor the mediators statement were recorded in the presence of the petitioner. In the absence of the above, it cannot be said that an enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 in its true letter and spirit. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the orders dated 14.05.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) vide D.Dis G/345/2025. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for conducting fresh enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Till then, the petitioner shall continue as fair price dealer to the subject shop. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS