APHC010549092022 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: 33601/2022 Between: B Thulasamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. U RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 25.08.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) vide Rc.A.33/2022 wherein the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer for shop No.1349037 situated in Gosanipalli village, Dhone mandal, Nandyal district was cancelled. 2. Heard Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, 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, based on the report of the tahsildar, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the alleged ground of certain irregularities, to which she has submitted an explanation, however, the 3rd respondent(RDO), without considering the said explanation and without conducting any enquiry, has issued impugned order dated 25.08.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization for subject fair price shop. He further submitted that, the said report of tahsildar was passed behind the back of the petitioner and the copy of the same was not served to the petitioner. He further submitted that, this court, by way of interim order dated 14.10.2022, has protected the interest of the petitioner and by virtue of the said interim orders, the petitioner is running the fair price shop. As such prayed to dispose of the writ petition by treating the interim order as final order. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 3rd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. 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 be dismissed and 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. 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, 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. 7. In the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), before issuing the impugned proceedings cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, has not given an opportunity of being heard provided to the petitioner. 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 dated 25.08.2022 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the RDO (3rd respondent). The RDO shall conduct proper enquiry as contemplated under law and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner. Till completion of such exercise, the interim order dated 14.10.2022 shall remain in force. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS