APHC010424172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21959/2024 Between: 1. V NIRMALAMMA, W/O J. ESWARIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP. NO. 1225033, R/O CHINNAKUNTA VILLAGE, ANANTAPUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPU 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner by his proceedings vide D. Dis. No. D1CS/1713/2022 dated 15.09.2024 without proper enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently 2 set aside the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.D1CS/1713/2022 dated 15.09.2024 and pass 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 to suspend the proceeding vide D. Dis. No. D1CS/1713/2022 dated 15.09.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent by continuing petitioner as a Fair Price Shop Dealer vide Shop No.'1225033, R/o Chinnakunta Village, Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MALLAVELLI NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that she has been appointed as a dealer of fair price shop No.1225033 of Chinnakunta Village, Anantapur Mandal & District, on 15.07.2008 and discharging her duties as dealer and supplying the commodities to the cardholders to the satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. While so, on 14.08.2022 at 09.00 AM the officials have conducted inspection in petitioner’s fair price shop wherein it was noticed that there is shortage of 120Kgs PMGKAY Rice, 5(½ KG) packets of sugar and excess of 18 KGs (1KG packets) of Red Gram Dal in the shop and accordingly, seized the stock along with weighing machine upon conducting Panchanama in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 26.08.2022 has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (the 3rd respondent herein) framing two charges which was served on 17.09.2022, for which explanation was submitted, however, the 3rd respondent without giving any findings on the said explanation and without conducting any enquiry, suspended the authorization of the petitioner by order dated 10.10.2022 and for such suspension, no show cause notice has been issued. 2. Further, aggrieved by the said suspension order of the 3rd respondent dated 10.10.2022, the petitioner preferred a writ petition vide W.P.No.40636/2022 wherein this Court, on 01.04.2024, disposed of the said writ petition by setting aside the suspension orders impugned 4 therein and remitted the matter back to the 3rd respondent therein for conducting fresh enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and record the reasons and further directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. The further case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.40636 of 2022, cancelled petitioner’s authorization vide proceedings dated 15.09.2024. Impugning the same, the writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri Naga Sai Lalit Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, this Court, on 01.04.2024, in W.P.No.40636 of 2022 specifically given directions to the authorities to conduct fresh enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and record reasons. Despite such directions, without conducting proper enquiry and without following law, the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled vide proceedings dated 15.09.2024. The sole basis for initiating enquiry is that some complaints have been received by the complainants but none of the complainants were examined nor the report relied on by the 5 3rd respondent while passing the impugned orders were supplied to the petitioner along with show cause notice. He further contended that the punishment is a major penalty wherein authorization has been cancelled for which enquiry has to be conducted by examining the complainants and giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. Further, the authority concerned has to supply the report of the Tahsildar along with show cause notice while inviting explanation from the petitioner, the same has been miserably failed while adjudicating the petitioner’s case, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the same, the impugned order has to be set aside, accordingly, prayed to set aside the same and pass appropriate orders. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer on counter contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity while passing the orders impugned. He further submitted that pursuant to the direction given by this Court, in earlier writ petition, show cause notice dated 02.07.2024 was issued to the petitioner for which an explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 16.07.2024. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot say that a fair opportunity was not given to her. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. A reading of the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, dated 15.09.2024, would indicate that the Tahsildar, has submitted a report on 14.08.2022 and further, report has been given by the complainants and having found prima facie evidence, a disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner and accordingly, show cause notice was issued. When the petitioner refused to receive the said show cause notice, the same has been affixed on the wall of the fair price shop in the presence of Sarpanch and Village Revenue Officer on 17.09.2022. However, pending enquiry, orders dated 10.10.2022 have been passed suspending the petitioner’s dealership. The said orders have been questioned by the petitioner by filing writ petition in W.P.No.40636 of 2022, which was disposed of on 01.04.2024 by setting aside the impugned suspension orders dated 10.10.2022 and remitted the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting fresh enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents that, pursuant to the said remand, a show cause notice dated 02.07.2024 has been issued to the petitioner for which she has submitted explanation on 16.07.2024 through her counsel. 7 8. As stated supra, there are complainants in the present case and the authorities have not examined those complainants. Further, no opportunity of personal hearing was also provided to the petitioner by issuing proper notice fixing time and date. Further, the report of the Tahsildar vide Rc.No.CS/884/2022 dated 14.08.2022 which was referred in the orders impugned was also not supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. 9. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority concerned failed to adhere to the fundamental principles of enquiry while passing the orders impugned. No doubt the enquiry need not be elaborate as in case of a disciplinary proceedings against a government servant but it shall follow the basic requirement of enquiry, which, in the opinion of this Court must be as described infra. Further, an enquiry presupposes an opportunity of personal hearing including recording the small statement of the dealer and witnesses if any and in case where either cardholder or other persons send any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer and also an opportunity of cross-examination was also be given to the such persons. Further, as stated above, the concerned authority, has to supply all the reports to the dealer, which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. 8 10. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner the 3rd respondent-RDO has relied on the report of the Tahsildar which was not at all supplied to the petitioner herein and also the recording of the small statement of the dealer and witnesses was not done. Without adhering to such procedure, issuing orders in such a manner amounts to passing orders behind the back of the dealer. 11. This Court in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, observed as extracted hereunder: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra. 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 card 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 licensing/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 1 2015(4) ALT 572 9 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” 12. Similarly, in M.Kalyani v. District Collector, Prakasam District & Ors2 and in M.Aruna v. District Collector & Ors3 has also observed in similar lines. In view of the reasons stated and the judgments referred supra, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the basic procedure and also Audi Alteram Partem principle and liable to be set aside. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: 13. The impugned notice dated 15.09.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting proper enquiry afresh as per law. 14. It is brought to the notice that authorities has already initiated temporary measure by appointing one J.Manjula who is supplying essential commodities in place of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the authorities are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2 2006(3) LS 191 DB 3 WP.No.29809 of 2013 10 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 21st January, 2026 RKS