APHC010477512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25375/2025 Between: 1. MOTHER TERESA SELF HELP GROUP, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY SMT.PAPPALA LAXMI W/O P.SANYASINAIDU, AGE 33 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.0233005, RAMAYYAPALEM VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, VIZIANAGARAM DIST., AT VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. 5. SMT N RAMA LAKSHMI, W/O ARJUNA SAMPATH MAHILA PODUPU SANGAM RAMAYYAPALEM VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus respondent videdeclaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd Rc.No.737/2025/A1 dt 1-9-2025 entrusting the ration distribution work to the 5 respondent in respect of FP Shop No.0233005, Ramayyapalem Village, Vizianagaram Dist., by terminating the petitioner's Jami Mandal, dealership without following due procedure as contemplated 2 VS,J W.P.No.25375 of 2025 under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 1-9-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, 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 Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.737/2025/A1 dt-1-9-2025 respect of FP Shop No.0233005, Ramayyapalem Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M MM SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.25375 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- <…to issue Writ, Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus respondent videdeclaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd Rc.No.737/2025/A1 dt: 1.9.2025 entrusting the ration distribution work to the 5threspondent in respect of FP Shop No.0233005, Ramayyapalem Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram Dist., by terminating the petitioner’sdealership without following due procedure as contemplated under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt: 1.9.2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual…= 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) Initially, one Smt.Siripurapu Kondamma was appointed as a temporary dealer for Shop No.0233005, situated at Ramayyapalem Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Basing on certain allegations, the said Kondamma was placed under suspension. In order to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram vide proceedings dated 26.06.2019 appointed the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop dealer on temporary basis. Since then, the petitioner has been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaints from any corner. b) While the things stood thus, due to a change in the political scenario and at the instance of local political leaders, the Civil Supplies Deputy 4 VS,J W.P.No.25375 of 2025 Tahsildar, Jami Mandal along with his subordinates inspected the petitioner?s Fair Price Shop on 02.07.2025 at about 10.30 a.m. and allegedly found a variation of (+) 2 kgs of sugar. Accordingly, a report was submitted to the 4th respondent alleging that the petitioner was not running the shop properly, who in turn forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent on 04.07.2025. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice on 30.07.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice. For which, the petitioner submitted her explanation. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that, the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry, straight away terminated the petitioner?s authorization vide impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2025. Challenging the said termination order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 19.09.2025, this Court passed the following interim order: <….the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent is hereby suspended, pending further orders.= 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and the learned counsel representing the unofficial respondent No.5. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, it can be observed that except referring to the report dated 5 VS,J W.P.No.25375 of 2025 04.07.2025 submitted by the 4th respondent, the show-cause notice dated 30.07.2025, the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the representation alleged to have been submitted by the 5th respondent and the report of the Tahsildar dated 25.08.2025, there is no mention as to whether any enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. On the other hand, in the impugned proceedings, the 3rd respondent has not assigned any reasons to the dissatisfaction of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered. It is also appears that basing on the proposal submitted by the Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent proposed to appoint the unofficial respondent No.5 in the place of the petitioner. Admittedly, no enquiry has been conducted by the 3rd respondent before passing the impugned proceedings. Such action is contrary to the settled law laid down by this Court in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein this Court held as follows: <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 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 6 VS,J W.P.No.25375 of 2025 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.= 6. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned termination order issued by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable, as it was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain her case, as required under law. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Rc.No.737/2025/A1 dated 01.09.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent. The matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from 7 VS,J W.P.No.25375 of 2025 the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the petitioner was never placed under suspension prior to the impugned order, terminating the petitioner?s authorization, the respondent authorities are directed to continue the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop dealer by supplying essential commodities. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 07.01.2026 KGR