1 APHC010590182023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30614/2023 Between: 1. V. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O V. SUBBAIAH AGED 62 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, D.NO. 5/1458, SHOP NO.L 182021, SRIRAM NAGAR, PRODDUTUR (M), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRCTI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDHAR, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS. THE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE ON TH ...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, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in cancelling the authorization of the petitioners FP Shop No. 1182021, Sriram Nagar, Proddutur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District vide orders Ref.No.l (3)7302/2021 dt. Ref.No.A2/843/20213 dt.09.03.2023 respectively is as illegal, arbitrary and violative 18.08.2022 (18.08.2023) and of principles of natural 2 justice and Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015 as well as order in WP contrary CCS No. 500 of 2020 and consequently direct the Respondents authorization of the fair to restore the price shop in favour of the petitioner for FP shop No. 1182021, Sriram Nagar, Proddutur Mandal, YSR Kadapa by setting aside the orders dt.18.08.2022 (18.08.2023) and dt.09.03.2022 passed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents respectively and to 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 direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as FP Shop dealer for shop No. 1182021, pending writ petition by suspending the orders Ref.No.l(3)/302/2021 dt.18.08.2022 (18.08.2023) and dt.09.03.2022 passed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents 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 to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SREEDHAR MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ORDER: Challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent (Joint Collector) vide Ref.No.I(3)/302/2021 dated 18.08.2022 confirming the orders dated 09.03.2022 issued by the respondent no.3 (RDO) vide Ref.A2/843/2021 wherein the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer for shop no.1182021 situated at Proddatur Town & Mandal, Jammalamadugu, was cancelled, the present writ petition is filed. 3 2. Heard Sri K.Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, based on the 6A report of the tahsildar dated 28.06.2021, the RDO has issued show cause notice dated 27.08.2021 framing 5 charges to which the petitioner tried to submit his explanation but the authorities did not receive the same. He further submitted that, without receiving explanation, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing and without conducting proper enquiry, the RDO (3rd respondent) had issued the proceedings dated 09.03.2022 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer solely on the ground that the petitioner has not produced his authorization while inspection (5th charge) by dropping the other 4 charges. He further submitted that, the petitioner has applied for renewal of his authorization for the year 2021-2022 and paid challan on 25.03.2021. In the said circumstances, the respondents cannot say that the petitioner has no authorization with regard to subject shop. He further submitted that, the document leading to the charges, such as panchanama, tahsildar’s report were not supplied to the petitioner so as to enable him to file effective reply and that the authorities did not conduct enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, ‘control order, 2018) and 4 therefore, there is violation of fundamental principles of natural justice besides in violation of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. 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. He further submitted that, the inspecting officials and panchayatdars also, were not examined in the presence of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent (Joint Collector) which was dismissed, confirming the cancellation orders of the RDO, in a mechanical manner, without conducting proper enquiry. He further submitted that, however, by virtue of the interim orders passed by this court dated 14.12.2023, the petitioner is continuing as fair price shop dealer. 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, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, justified the impugned proceedings being flawless and does not suffer from any procedural infirmity. He would further contend that the petitioner has been given a fair opportunity of submitting explanation, as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that, the petitioner, 5 instead of filing revision before the Collector (Civil Supplies), filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the both the learned counsel. 6. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that, without initiating any separate report for disciplinary action against the petitioner, without conducting proper enquiry, without examining the inspecting officials and panchayatdars in the presence of petitioner, and without supplying the documents relied by them, the RDO has passed orders cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, which was further confirmed by the appellate authority vide orders dated 18.08.2022. If an adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration and decides the matter against the party, the decision is vitiated for its amounts to denial of real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. 7. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner’s authorization is based on the 6A report of the tahsildar and enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Clause 20(i) of the Control order, 2018. 6 8. The impugned cancellation orders nowhere specifies that copy of the panchanama and tahsildar’s report was supplied to the petitioner so as to enable him to file effective reply. Further, though the dealer flatly denied allegations made against him, the mediators, who are present at the time of inspection and preparation of panchanama, were not examined. Moreover, the sworn statements of the dealer was not at all recorded nor the mediators statement were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and the impugned proceedings nowhere states that an opportunity of fair hearing has been provided to the petitioner. In the absence of the above, it cannot be said that an enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 in its true letter and spirit. The appellate authority also did not look into all these aspects while dealing with the appeal. 9. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority & appellate authority, without conducting proper enquiry as contemplated under clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and solely basing on the 6A report of the tahsildar, in violation to Clause 20(i) of the Control order, 2018 and since the petitioner has not been furnished copy of the panchanama and tahsildar’s report, the said orders suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Control Orders besides being violative of Audi Alteram Partem principle. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the proceedings 09.03.2022 issued by the respondent no.3 (RDO) vide Ref.A2/843/2021 and proceedings of the 2nd respondent (Joint Collector) vide Ref.No.I(3)/302/2021 dated 18.08.2022. The matter is remitted back to the Preliminary authority (RDO) for conducting enquiry afresh. Till conclusion of the enquiry, the interim orders dated 14.12.2023 shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS