1 APHC010327222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16455/2025 Between: 1. K DASTAGIRI, S/O LATE K ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: FAIR SHOP DEALER, FAIR PRICE SHOP NO. 1283018, RAYADURG TOWN AND MANDAL, R/O LAKSHMI BAZAR, RAYADURG, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANADURGAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYADURGAM 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction to set aside the proceedings of the Respondent no.3, vide Rc.No.K6/05/2025, dated 21.04.2025,and the 2 cancellation order of the Respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.B2/1418/202 4, dated 27.12.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and without following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same and allow the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Dealer vide shop No. 1283018 situated at Rayadurg Town and Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders in proceedings of the Respondent no.3, vide Rc.No.K6/05/2025, dated 21.04.2025, and the cancellation order of the Respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.B2/1418/202 4, dated 27.12.2024 and direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue operating F.P. Shop No. 1283018 and supply essential commodities to cardholders pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent (Joint Collector and Addl. District Magistrate) vide Rc.No.K6/05/2025 dated 21.04.2025 confirming the orders dated 27.12.2024 issued by the respondent no.4 (RDO) vide Rc.No.B2/1418/2024 wherein the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer was cancelled, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Shaik Asif, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3 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.1283018 situated in Rayadurg Town and Mandal, Ananthapur District in the year 2008. He further submitted that, based on the report submitted by the tahsildar (5th respondent), the RDO has issued show cause notice dated 16.12.2024 on the alleged ground of variations in stock and invited explanation from the petitioner as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, to which the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 20.12.2024 denying the allegations stating that he had handed over the stock to the Mobile Dispensing Unit (MDU) operator, Syed Noor Basha and that the inspection report was false and created under political pressure. 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 dated 27.12.2024 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 4 Order, 2018 by solely basing on the report of the Tahsildar. He further submitted that, when the petitioner has taken a specific stand that stock was delivered to the MDU operator, the authorities ought to have examined him and recorded his statement in the presence of the petitioner, which was miserably failed in the present case. He further submitted that, the inspecting officials and panchayatdars also, were not examined in the presence of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent (Joint Collector) which was dismissed, confirming the cancellation orders of the RDO, in a mechanical manner, without conducting proper enquiry. He further submitted that, however, by virtue of the interim orders passed by this court dated 04.07.2025, the petitioner is continuing as fair price shop dealer. As such prayed to set aside the cancellation orders. 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, instead of filing revision before the 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 the both the learned counsel. 5 6. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering his explanation in a right perspective, without examining the MDU operator and recording statement, without conducting proper enquiry, without examining the inspecting officials and panchayatdars in the presence of petitioner, and without supplying the documents relied by them, the RDO has passed orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, which was further confirmed by the appellate authority vide orders dated 21.04.2025. 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 it 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 the tahsildar’s report and 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: “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 1. 2015(4) ALT 572 6 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 statements of the dealer and the MDU operator, to whom the stock is said to have been handed over, were not at all recorded nor the mediators statement were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and the impugned proceedings nowhere states that an opportunity of fair hearing has been provided to 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. The appellate authority also did not look into all these aspects while dealing with the appeal. 7 9. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority & appellate authority, without conducting proper enquiry as contemplated under clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and since the petitioner has not been furnished copy of the panchanama and tahsildar’s report, the said orders suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Control Orders besides being violative of Audi Alteram Partem Rule. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the proceedings 27.12.2024 issued by the respondent no.4 (RDO) vide Rc.No.B2/1418/2024 and proceedings of the 3rd respondent (Joint Collector and Addl. District Magistrate) vide Rc.No.K6/05/2025 dated 21.04.2025. The matter is remitted back to the Preliminary authority (RDO) for conducting enquiry afresh. Till conclusion of the enquiry, the interim orders dated 04.07.2025 shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS