APHC010477822023 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: 24775/2023 Between: 1. B HUSSAINAPPA, S/O B. DASTAGIRAPPA, HINDU, SHOP NO.1325008, 48 YEARS, OCC.FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, MARAKATTU VILLAGE, ALUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATTIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUR MANDAL, 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 to issue, a writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings in Appeal Case 2 No.CS.3/65/2023 dated 15.08.2023 confirming the proceedings Rc.M/4575/2019 dated 22.06.2022 issued by the 4th respondent, cancelling the petitioners authorization in respect of Shop No.1325008, Marakattu Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District, without considering the material available on record, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, predetermination, colorable exercise of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same duly permitting the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay the operation of the proceedings Appeal Case No.CS.3/65/2023 dated 15.08.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent, the proceedings Rc.M/4575/2019 dated 22.06.2022 issued by the 4th respondent by permitting the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders in Fair Price Shop No.1325008, Marakattu Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the proceedings of the Joint Collector in Appeal Case No.C.S.3/65/2023 dated 15.08.2023 confirming the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer-4th respondent herein in proceedings dated 22.06.2022, cancelling the petitioners authorization in respect of shop No.1325008 in Marakattu Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Head Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1325008 in Marakattu Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District on 23.02.2018. Since appointment, he has been distributing essential commodities to cardholders to the satisfaction of both authorities and beneficiaries. While so, show cause notice dated 24.03.2022 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (the 4th respondent), once again alleging similar charges and calling for explanation. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation denying the allegations and specifically contending that no panchanama was recorded nor inspection was conducted at the petitioner’s fair price shop. Further, no statements of the cardholders were also furnished nor 4 opportunity of cross examination was provided to the petitioner. However, without considering the same, the respondent authorities, relying on an alleged inspection dated 09.09.2019 and a report dated 16.09.2019 (which was not supplied to the petitioner), passed the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector (the 3rd respondent), who by order dated 15.08.2023 mechanically confirmed the cancellation of the petitioner, as such, the same is liable to be set aside, accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies justified the impugned orders and contended that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation. After considering the material available on record, the authorities have passed the orders impugned after due application of mind. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5 6. The petitioner was a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1325008 in Marakattu Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District on 23.02.2018. While so, the 2nd respondent-Collector then issued show cause notice dated 27.09.2019 framing three charges alleging certain irregularities. On the same day, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended pending enquiry. The petitioner challenged the said suspension order by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.16073 of 2019 and this Court, on 18.02.2021, disposed of the said writ petition in view of the orders passed in W.P.No.14238 of 2020 and directed the authorities to conclude the enquiry within four weeks. Subsequently, another show cause notice dated 24.03.2022 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (the 4th respondent), once again alleging similar charges and calling for explanation for which the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation dated 06.04.2022 denying the allegations and specifically contending that no panchanama was recorded nor inspection was conducted at the petitioner’s fair price shop. Further, no statements of the cardholders were also furnished nor opportunity of cross examination was provided to the petitioner. However, relying on a report dated 16.09.2019 (which was not supplied to the petitioner), the 4th respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal 6 before the Joint Collector (the 3rd respondent), who by order dated 15.08.2023 confirmed the order of cancellation dated 22.06.2022. 7. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged inspection said to have taken place on 09.09.2019 was not mentioned in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. It is indeed surprising as to how the said inspection dated 09.09.2019 was mentioned for the first time in the order passed by the 4th respondent. In the said order, it was also stated that the statements of the card holders were examined; however, in reality, they were not examined in the presence of the petitioner. 8. Further, the authorities also relied on the report dated 16.09.2019 while passing the impugned order. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the said report was not supplied to him. When the inspection allegedly took place on 09.09.2019, no reasons are coming forward as to what prevented the authorities from mentioning the same in the show cause notice. That itself creates serious doubt about the fairness of the procedure adopted. By not conducting the examination of the cardholders in the presence of the petitioner, the petitioner has lost his right cross-examine the cardholders. Without adhering to such 7 procedure, issuing orders in such a manner amounts to passing orders behind the back of the dealer. 9. 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 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” 1 2015(4) ALT 572 8 10. 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. 11. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has simply confirmed the orders of the preliminary authority, without conducting proper enquiry. The aspects, whether the preliminary authority have examined the cardholders in the presence of petitioner, and whether an opportunity of cross examination was given to the petitioner and whether the report dated 16.09.2019 which was relied by the authority was furnished to the petitioner or not, were not dealt by the Appellate Authority. As such, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned proceedings of the Joint Collector in Appeal Case No.C.S.3/65/2023 dated 15.08.2023 confirming the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer-4th respondent herein in proceedings dated 22.06.2022 is hereby 2 2006(3) LS 191 DB 3 WP.No.29809 of 2013 9 set aside and the matter is remitted back to preliminary authority for fresh adjudication. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 29th January, 2026 RKS