1 APHC010440382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22435/2025 Between: 1. K C JYOTHI, W/O. G.JALANDAR GOUD, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 1382122 AND IN-CHARGE FP SHOP NO. 1382069, KURNOOL URBAN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no. 4 in cancelling the petitioners F.P. Shop dealership in FP Shop No. 1382122 sc 1/C, Shop No. 1382069 of Kurnool Urban by his proceedings date 17.11.2023 in Rc.No. DT(LR) 1556/2023 as confirmed by the 2ND respondent by an order dated 11.07.2025 in Appeal Case No. CS.3/62/2024 is arbitrary, highhanded, irregular, improper and in violation of the principles 2 of law in consequence thereon and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondent forthwith to restore the dealership of the petitioner FP Shop No. 1382122 sc 1/C, Shop No. 1382069 of Kurnool Urban and pass 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 pleased to direct the respondent forthwith to restore the dealership of the petitioner FP Shop No. 1382122 sc I/C, Shop No. 1382069 of Kurnool Urban, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TADELA RADHAMMA 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 17.11.2023 issued by the 4th respondent (RDO) vide Rc.DT(LR)1556/2023 wherein the petitioner’s authorization for shop No.1382122 and in-charge shop No.1382069 in Kurnool Urban area was cancelled which was further confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority. 2. Heard Smt P.Revathi, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, since the dealer of Shop no.1382069 died, the petitioner was made in-charge to Shop No.1382069, besides her Shop No.1382122 and she was distributing essential commodities for the 3 cardholders of both the shops, from her shop. She further submitted that, basing on the report of Assistant Supply Officer and on allegation of variations in stock, the RDO has issued show cause notice, to which the petitioner had submitted her explanation stating that, no orders have been given to her appointing as in-charge dealer for the Shop No.1382069 and that while allotting in-charge, the MDU operator has only handed over the Epos machine to her but not the balance stock. She further submitted that, without considering the said explanation, the authorities have suspended the petitioner’s authorization vide orders dated 25.08.2023, pending final enquiry. (b) She further submitted that, challenging the said suspension order, the petitioner preferred appeal vide Appeal Case No.CS.3/6/2024 before the Joint Collector, which was remanded to the RDO directing to dispose the case finally within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. She further submits that, pursuant to the said order, the RDO has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner with regard to her shop and in-charge shop also vide proceedings dated 17.11.2023. She further submitted that, aggrieved by the cancellation orders, the petitioner preferred appeal and revision, however, both were dismissed upholding the orders of the RDO dated 17.11.2023. (c). She further submitted that, the document leading to the charges, such as report of Assistant Supply Officer, panchanama were not supplied to the petitioner so as to enable her 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 4 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 by solely basing on the report of the Assistant Supply Officer and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 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 and she has attended for personal hearing, as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that, without questioning the orders of appellate authority and revisional authority, the petitioner has only questioned the orders of the RDO and that, the grounds regarding non-supply of material were never raised by the petitioner either before the appellate authority or before the revisional authority. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to the dismissed. He further submitted that, in the event if this court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the authority concerned to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 5 6. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that, while cancelling her authorization with regard to her shop (Shop No.1382122) and in-charge shop (Shop No.1382069), the authorities have not provided her with the documents relied by them nor conducted proper enquiry and that her explanation regarding the non-supply of stock with regard to incharge shop 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: “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 1. 2015(4) ALT 572 6 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 Assistant Supply Officer’s report was supplied to the petitioner so as to enable her to file effective reply. Further, though the dealer flatly denied allegations made against her, 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. 9. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner has only questioned the orders of the RDO. Though the violation of settled principles is apparent from the impugned proceedings of the RDO, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, without application of mind, in a mechanical manner have simply confirmed the orders of the RDO which is unsustainable. The said order suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the 7 procedure contemplated under the Control Orders besides being violative of Audi Alteram Partem Rule. Therefore, they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the orders dated 17.11.2023 of the 4th respondent (RDO) vide Rc.DT(LR)1556/2023, order dated 11.03.2024 of the Joint Collector and the order dated 11.07.2025 of the District Collector. 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. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 24.02.2026 BRS