APHC010388002024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19563/2024 Between: 1. E. LAVANYA, D/O. BHASKAR, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. D.NO. 2-42/A, KADIVEDU VILLAGE, BEERAKUPPAM POST, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2 RC,J W.P.NO.19563 OF 2024 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER VRO, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 7. THE JUNIOR ASSISTANT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 8. B MUNASWAMY, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O. KADIVEDU VILLAGE, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI 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 any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 29.08.2024 issued by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to clause 20(a) of Andhra Pradesh Stale Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order. 2018 and without jurisdiction and consequently set-aside the notice dated 29.08.2024 issued by the 4th respondent IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of notice dated 29.08.2024 issued by the 4th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K V RAGHU VEER 3 RC,J W.P.NO.19563 OF 2024 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 RC,J W.P.NO.19563 OF 2024 ORDER The writ petition has been filed to declare the impugned show cause notice vide Roc.G/469/2024 dated 29.08.2024 is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Mr.V.Vinod K Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, basing on the report of the Tahsildar, the impugned show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. It is contended that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to conduct any enquiry or to submit such a report. It is further submitted that the inspection was conducted by the Village Revenue Officer and Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Assistant, Nagalapuram Mandal, who are also not competent authorities to conduct such inspection. Therefore, basing on such reports, issuance of the show cause notice is unsustainable under law and liable to be set aside. 5 RC,J W.P.NO.19563 OF 2024 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as against the show cause notice, writ does not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Siemens Ltd vs.State of Maharastra and others 1 and contends that when the authorities was pre- determined to take action, writ is maintainable even while questioning the show cause notice. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that without having any jurisdiction, the Tahsildar has issued a report and based on the same, the authorities have issued the impugned show cause notice dated 29.08.2024, which is wholly unsustainable. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India v. Kunisetty 1 (2006) 12 SCC 33 6 RC,J W.P.NO.19563 OF 2024 Satyanarayana, but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India.) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice.” 8. Though the above said principle is well settled principle, it is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the petitioner did not plead anywhere that the authorities have issued the show cause notice with pre-determined mind. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2024, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 29.01.2026 LSP