APHC010309832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15454/2025 Between: 1. SMT. G.H.GEETHA,, W/O. G.H.NAGARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO. 1219011 MEGHAMALA MAHILA PODHUPU SANGAM, R/O. GALAGALA VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT ANANTAPUR. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT ANANTAPUR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANDURGAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15454/2025 SMT. G.H.GEETHA,, W/O. G.H.NAGARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO. 1219011 MEGHAMALA MAHILA PODHUPU SANGAM, R/O. GALAGALA VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT ANANTAPUR. HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANDURGAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SMT. G.H.GEETHA,, W/O. G.H.NAGARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP.NO. 1219011 MEGHAMALA MAHILA PODHUPU SANGAM, R/O. GALAGALA VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA ...PETITIONER REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AT ANANTAPUR. HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANDURGAM, THE TAHSILDAR, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature 2 of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings D.Dis.No.B4/327/2025 dated 20.05.2025 by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of F.P Shop No.1219011, Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District without 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.1219011, Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District and pass such 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 respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s F.P Shop No.1219011, Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings of 4th respondent vide D.Dis.No.B4/327/2025 dated 20.05.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition and to pass such 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 to vacate the Interim order dated 26.06.2025 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in W.P. No. 15454 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyandurg in D.Dis No.B4/327/2025 dated 20.05.2025, whereby the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop No.1219011 situated at Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District was cancelled without any valid reason and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. The brief facts that led to filing of this Writ Petition are that: The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price shop dealer for the subject shop by virtue of proceedings issued by respondent No.4 in Rc.No.334/2019/B1, dated 28.08.2019. Subsequently, the officials of respondent Department inspected the shop and allegedly found certain irregularities. Based on the said inspection, the Tahsildar submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer recommending cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization vide letter Rc.No.5/2025 dated 09.01.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued show cause notice vide reference in D.Dis No.B2/62/2025 dated 29.01.2025, to which the petitioner submitted her explanation on 27.01.2025. However, respondent No.4 passed orders vide D.Dis No.B4/327/2025 dated 20.05.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4836 of 2025 4 before this Court and this Court set aside the said order on the ground that no proper enquiry had been conducted as contemplated under law, while granting liberty to the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry in the light of the decision reported in C.Durga Srinivasarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1 and to pass appropriate order thereafter. Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Divisional Officer again issued notices and passed orders vide D.Dis No.B4/327/2025 dated 20.05.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization for the subject shop. Assailing the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that earlier the authorities, on the alleged ground of irregularities committed by the petitioner, had issued a show cause notice, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, without considering the said explanation and without conducting a proper enquiry, the authorities cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4836 of 2025 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said Writ Petition by setting aside the order dated 24.02.2025, while granting liberty to the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry. He further submitted that despite such directions, the Revenue 1 2015 (6)ALD 359 5 Divisional Officer passed the impugned orders by conducting only an eye wash enquiry. He further submitted that as many as four notices were issued, to which the petitioner submitted her explanations through her counsel as well. In fact, a notice dated 10.04.2025 was issued directing the petitioner to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 16.04.2025. The counsel for the petitioner appeared on the said date. Though a few cardholders were present, no statements were recorded in the presence of the petitioner’s counsel and the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, the matter was posted to 30.04.2025, on which date, the petitioner along with her counsel, appeared and submitted a detailed explanation. He further submitted that when the petitioner had categorically denied the charges framed against her, the authorities concerned ought to have examined the cardholders, who were alleged to be the complainants, in the presence of the petitioner or her counsel, record their statements and provided an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine them. He further submitted that despite the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the authorities concerned conducted the enquiry in a mere eye wash manner only with a view to deny the petitioner’s right to continue as a Fair Price shop dealer, allegedly due to extraneous considerations and political interference. Though a detailed explanation was submitted, none of the grounds or the stand taken therein were considered by the authorities. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot contend that a proper enquiry was conducted as contemplated under law and in accordance 6 with the directions of this Court in earlier Writ Petition. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order has been passed contrary to law and in clear violation of principles of natural justice which is liable to be set aside. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.4, contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the order impugned. He further submitted that after the earlier order was set aside by this Court, the authorities issued notices to the petitioner and called for her explanation. The authority also examined the cardholders and recorded their statements and after taking into consideration all the material available on record including the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order in accordance with law. He further submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, she has to invoke an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector under the Control Order 2018. The petitioner has not made out any valid grounds to bypass the said alternative remedy. The Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a temporary Fair Price shop dealer of the subject shop. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court dated 26.06.2025, the petitioner has been continuing as a Fair Price Shop dealer. 8. Perusal of the record shows that earlier, the authorities, after issuing show cause and calling for explanation, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization by way of proceedings dated 29.01.2025. The said order was questioned by the petitioner on the alleged ground that the authorities had not conducted a proper enquiry by filing a Writ Petition No.4836 of 2025, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 24.02.2025, set aside the order impugned therein, granting liberty to the authority concerned to conduct proper enquiry afresh in the light of the decision reported in C.Durgarao’s case (cited supra). 9. As culled out from the facts of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, pursuant to the said order, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued as many as four notices to the petitioner dated 18.03.2025, 10.04.2025, 22.04.2025 and 28.04.2025. One of the said notices was issued for the purpose of personal hearing. 10. However, as could be seen from the impugned proceedings dated 16.04.2025, though certain cardholders appeared before the authority, it is nowhere stated in the order that their statements were recorded in the 8 presence of the petitioner or her counsel and that an opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross examine them. On the contrary, the material placed on record along with counter of respondent No.4 shows that the statements of certain cardholders were dated 04.01.2025, which are prior to the enquiry. This itself shows that such statements were recorded earlier and not in the course of enquiry in the presence of the petitioner or her counsel. When the burden lies on the respondent authorities to prove that the petitioner has committed the alleged irregularities, a proper enquiry is required to be conducted. Such enquiry must necessarily include recording the sworn statement of the dealer as well as the witnesses, if any. In cases where cardholders or other persons make complaints, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her counsel and the dealer should be given an opportunity of cross examine such persons as held by the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2025 in Writ Appeal No.139 of 2025 in the case of M.Aruna v. District Collector & others. 11. This Court has dealt with a number of cases of similar nature and it has consistently been observed that the appointing authorities of Fair Price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of conducting a personal enquiry by summoning the dealers and the complainants whenever necessary, and are passing orders merely relying upon the reports submitted by their subordinates such as Deputy Tahsildar or the Tahsildar as the case may be. Such type of enquiries cannot be termed as affording an opportunity of 9 hearing to the dealer. Despite a series of directions issued by this Court, the authorities are not adhering to the same and are continuing to pass orders contrary to the directions given by this Court. 12. In the present case also, the impugned order clearly shows that the authority has not conducted the enquiry in the manner prescribed and as directed by this Court in Writ Appeal 122 of 2025 and also in Writ Petition No.4836 of 2025. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the principle of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem. 13. In so far as the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader with regard to availability of alternative remedy of appeal under the Control Order, 2018 is concerned, it is well settled law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, since the impugned order is vitiated on the said ground, this Court is inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. 14. When this Court specifically directed the authorities to follow the procedure, the respondent authority, despite such directions, has once again passed the impugned order in violation of the same, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing the present Writ Petition. When the Writ Petition is allowed, the authorities once again passing similar 10 orders in disregard of the directions issued by this Court, the affected parties would be repeatedly forced to approach this Court by filing another Writ Petition and the cycle will be repeated eternally. In this process, the petitioners can never get their grievance redressed through a Court of law. Is it the law of land? Can it be said that the Majesty of Law is being upheld by allowing officers to pass orders without reference to law laid down in the case. If this sort of persistent defence of the officers of the state is permitted by the Courts, rule of law and administration of justice would be in jeopardy. If this Court allows the authorities in passing such orders, in the opinion of this Court, this Court would not be administering the justice, but perpetuating the injustice that is being done by the executive. 15. Because of the improper action of the respondent authority concerned, the petitioner has not only suffered mental agony, but has also been compelled to incur expenditure in repeatedly approaching this Court for redressal of her grievance. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/- on the respondent authority concerned, who passed the impugned order. As stated supra, the impugned order is ex facie illegal and contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. 11 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings issued by respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyandurg in D.Dis.No.B4/327/2025 dated 20.05.2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.1219011 situated at Galagala Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the said authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, in compliance with the principles of natural justice and in the light of the decision of C.Durga Srinivasarao (cited supra). The state shall pay costs to the petitioner to a tune of Rs.20,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and recover the same from the authority concerned who passed the impugned order and a compliance memo shall be filed before the Registry. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 02.03.2026 MP 12 247 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.15454 of 2025 02.03.2026 MP