1 APHC010441082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22737/2024 Between: 1. POTTAPI PENCHALA SWAMY, S/O. PITCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.PENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. PERUMALLA MANJULA, W/O. PENCHALA SWAMY, PRESIDENT VENGAMAMBA PODUPU GROUP PENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE 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 that Hon'ble Court may be to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings in RCH.958/2024, dt. 12.09.2024 appointing the 5th respondent as temporary dealer of shop No.0923024 of Penubarthi village, Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of 2 principles of natural justice and one without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the proceedings in RCH.958/2024, dt.12.09.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent by permitting the petitioner to supply essential commodities to the card holder of the Penubarthi village, Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 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 direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to supply the essential commodities to the Card holders of Penubarthi village by suspending the Orders of the 2nd respondent in RCH.958/2024, dt. 12.09.2024 pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings vide RCH.958/2024, dated 12.09.2024 issued by respondent no.3, in appointing the 5th respondent as temporary fair price shop dealer to F.P. shop No.0923024 of Penubarthi Village, Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry. 2. Heard Sri M.Veerendranath, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, 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 regular dealer of the subject shop, while so, basing on the report of the tahsildar, the RDO issued the impugned proceedings dated 12.09.2024, appointing the 5th respondent as a temporary dealer, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court allowed W.P.No.39630 of 2014 dated 24.12.2014 holding that a dealer cannot be replaced by another dealer without conducting any enquiry. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that, since the petitioner has committed certain irregularities, basing on the report of the tahsildar, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for which, the petitioner did not choose to give any reply, as such, in order to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders, 5th respondent was appointed on temporary basis. As such the petitioner has not made any grounds warranting the interference of this Court and writ petition deserves dismissal being meritless. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner was never given any show cause notice, if so given, the authorities would have mentioned the date of the show cause notice in the impugned proceedings, as such the contention that the petitioner did not choose to give 4 any reply is not correct. He further submitted that, the tahsildar report was never supplied to the petitioner and without suspending or cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, the authorities cannot appoint 5th respondent as temporary dealer to the subject shop. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 7. As could be seen from the pleadings and facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed as a regular dealer and without issuing any show cause notice, he was replaced by a temporary dealer i.e., 5th respondent herein vide proceedings dated 12.09.2024. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the authorities have not mentioned the date of show cause notice issued to the petitioner in the impugned proceedings. In the said circumstances, this Court can presume that, no show cause notice or opportunity of being heard was given and no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner herein. 8. A perusal of record would show that, solely basing on report of the tahsildar, the impugned proceedings were issued appointing the 5th respondent as temporary dealer, without there being any suspension or cancellation of the authorisation, without issuing any show cause notice and without conducting any enquiry. In view of the same, the impugned order is unsustainable under law. 5 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the proceedings vide RCH.958/2024, dated 12.09.2024 issued by respondent no.3. However, this order does not preclude the authorities to take necessary action against the petitioner, is so advised, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS