APHC010234692026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12217/2026 Between: 1. S RAMALINGADU, S/O HANUMANTHU AGE 56 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.1321010, DAIVAMDINNE VILLAGE YEMMIGANUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST.-518360 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.-522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DIST., AT KURNOOL- 518002. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL DIST., AT KURNOOL- 518002. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI DIVISION, KURNOOL DIST.-518301. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, YAMMIGANUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST.- 518360 ...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 a writ or direction preferably writ of 2 mandamus declaring the order passed by the 4th respondent vide Rc.(M)4196/2017 dt 16-4-2026, wherein cancelling the petitioner's authorization in respect of the F.P Shop No.1321010, Daivamdinne Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned order dt 16-4-2026 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Suspend the operation of the order issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.(M)4196/2017 dt: 16-4-2026, wherein cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No.1321010, Daivamdinne Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool Dist., by continuing the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he has been appointed as a dealer of fair price shop No.1321010 of Daivamdinne Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District and discharging his duties as dealer and supplying the commodities to the cardholders to the utmost satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. While so, on 06.10.2016 the officials have conducted inspection in petitioner’s fair price shop and found variations in the ground balance of the commodities, the 5th respondent submitted his report dated 18.10.2016 to the 4th respondent for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said report, the 4th respondent issued order dated 20.02.2017 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, thereafter, without considering his explanation, cancelled the authorization by order dated 12.06.2017. Further, aggrieved by the said cancellation order of dated 12.06.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was dismissed on 23.01.2018. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred revision before the 2nd respondent and the same was also dismissed on 24.01.2019. Aggrieved thereby, writ petition vide W.P.No.2530/2019 has been filed wherein this Court, on 16.12.2024, dismissed the same. Challenging the same, Writ Appeal has been filed and the same was allowed on 02.05.2025 setting aside the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and remitting the matter back to the 4 original primary authority for fresh consideration and for conducting proper enquiry. Further, pursuant to the said writ appeal order, the 4th respondent issued show cause notice dated 18.11.2025 asking the petitioner to appear before him on 26.11.2025 along with relevant record. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation along with a request to restore his shop. Thereafter, on 11.12.2025, the petitioner’s authorization has been restored. The further case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent, without giving an opportunity of being heard and without following the order passed in the writ appeal, passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2026, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Impugning the same, the writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that despite the directions given by this Court in W.A.No.976 of 2025 without conducting proper enquiry and without following law, the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled vide impugned proceedings dated 16.04.2026. The report relied on by the respondents while passing the impugned orders was not supplied to the petitioner along with show cause notice. He further contended that the 5 punishment is a major penalty wherein authorization has been cancelled for which enquiry has to be conducted by examining the complainants and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to cross-examine them. Further, the authority concerned has to supply the report relied by them along with show cause notice inviting explanation of the petitioner, the same has been miserably failed while adjudicating the petitioner’s case. In view of the same, the impugned order has to be set aside, accordingly, prayed to set aside the same and pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the impugned orders passed by the 4th respondent 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 appeal, another show cause notice dated 18.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner for which an explanation was submitted. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot say that a fair opportunity was not given to him. He further submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance against the said order, he has to file appeal, but cannot once again file writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and 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. 6 6. A reading of the impugned orders of the 4th respondent vide Rc.(M).4196/2017 dated 16.04.2026, would indicate that the Tahsildar, Yemmiganur Mandal, has submitted a report and having found prima facie evidence, a disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner and accordingly, his authorization has been cancelled. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 12.06.2017 through an appeal, revision, and writ petition, but all were dismissed. However, in the writ appeal, this Court on 22.09.2025 set aside the said orders and sent the matter back to the original authority for fresh consideration after conducting a proper enquiry. It is the contention of the respondents that, pursuant to the said order, a show cause notice dated 06.05.2022 has been issued to the petitioner for which he has submitted explanation on 13.05.2022. The contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the said order, another show cause notice has been issued and the petitioner’s authorization has been restored, later, the same was cancelled by impugned order dated 16.04.2026. As stated supra, the report of the Tahsildar, Yemmiganur, which was referred in the orders impugned was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. 7. 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 7 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. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner the 4th respondent 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. 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 1 2015(4) ALT 572 8 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” 10. Similarly, in M.Kalyani v. District Collector, Prakasam District & Ors2 and in M.Aruna v. District Collector & Ors in W.P.No.29809 of 2013 has also observed in similar lines. 11. 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: 2 2006(3) LS 191 DB 9 “The impugned order vide Rc(M)4196/2017 dated 16.04.2026 is hereby set aside. However, the authorities are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law.” It is brought to the notice of this Court that Village Revenue Officer is distributing the essential commodities at present. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. 12. 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: 07th May, 2026 RKS