1 APHC010467722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24032/2025 Between: Chenna Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings dated 20.01.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) wherein the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer was cancelled, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as 2 permanent fair price shop dealer for the Shop No.1182012 situated in Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in the year 2015. He further submitted that, based on the report submitted by the tahsildar(4th respondent), the RDO has issued show cause notice dated 13.01.2023 (which was served on 16.01.2023) on the alleged ground of certain irregularities and invited explanation from the petitioner as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. He further submitted that, without giving sufficient time to submit explanation, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing and without conducting proper enquiry, the RDO (3rd respondent) had issued the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2023 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. He further submitted that, the impugned proceedings are initiated based on the 6A report issued by the tahsildar and not based on any separate report issued for conducting enquiry for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which is contrary to the Clause 20(I) of the Control order, 2018. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of this High Court in W.P.No.500/2020 dated 08.01.2020 and accordingly prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the impugned order is of the year 2023 and the present writ petition was filed after two years i.e., in 2025, as such the writ petition has to be dismissed on the grounds of latches. He further submitted that, the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal before the Collector (Civil Supplies), filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and liable to 3 be 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. 6. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2023 would indicate that basing on the 6A case report of the tahsildar dated 31.12.2022, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.01.2023 asking to submit explanation and to attend before the RDO on 17.01.2023 at 10:30 am but the same was served to the petitioner on 16.01.2023. The contention of the petitioner is that without giving sufficient time to submit explanation, the authorities have issued the impugned proceedings within 6 days cancelling his authorization even without hearing the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner has not questioned the impugned proceedings in time. 7. As per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, the concerned authority is required to provide a fair price shop dealer with an opportunity to make a representation before passing any adverse orders, such as suspension or cancellation of their authorization. Even otherwise, the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, 4 have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence. 8. In the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), before issuing the impugned proceedings cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, has not given any sufficient time to submit explanation nor was an opportunity of being heard provided to him. As such the impugned proceedings are issued in violation of principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of and the impugned proceedings vide Ref No.A1/137/2023 dated 20.01.2023 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the RDO (3rd respondent). The petitioner shall submit his explanation to the show cause notice dated 13.01.2023 within two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the RDO shall conduct proper enquiry as contemplated under law and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner. This entire exercise shall be completed within three(03) months thereafter. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS