APHC010593252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35531/2025 Between: 1. THANEERU RAMA KOTAIAH, S/O NARAYANA, AGED (ABOUT 65 YEAS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. 0741015, KOTCHARLA VILLAGE IPURU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, , PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, VINUKONDA, PALNADU 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing Procs. Rc.No. 318/2023-G dt. 25-10-2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner's dealership of F.P.Shop No. 0741015 situated at Kotcherla village, Ipuru Mandal, Palnadu District, without properly considering the application dt. 29- RC,J W.P No.35531 of 2025 2 9-2025, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 pleased to pass orders directing the 3rd respondent herein to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 0741015 of Kotcherla village, Ipuru Mandal, Palnadu District by suspending the impugned order bearing Procs. Rc.No. 318/2023-G dt. 25-10-2025, pending disposal of he main Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES RC,J W.P No.35531 of 2025 3 The Court made the following Order: Impugning the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet vide Proceeding in Rc.No.318/2023-G dated 25.10.2025 wherein the petitioner‟s authorization as Fair Price Shop dealer for the shop bearing No.0741015 of Kotcherla Village of Ipuru Mandal was cancelled, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri. K.Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is appointed as a regular dealer for the shop bearing No.0741015 situated at Kotcherla Village, Ipuru Mandal, Palnadu District and distributing the essential commodities to the utmost satisfaction of the cardholders and the authorities. 4. On 03.10.2019, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda conducted a surprise inspection over the said fair price shop and found variations in the stock and proceeded to seize the stock and accordingly, booked a case under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act (herein after referred to as „Act‟). Further, upon receipt of the inspection report, officials have initiated disciplinary proceedings also and have accordingly, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2019 calling for the explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. The respondent No.2, accordingly, suspended the petitioner‟s authorization temporarily, pending enquiry, on 18.10.2019. 5. By virtue of the Amendment of the Control Order, 2018, the Revenue Divisional Authority is made as the appointing authority and accordingly, the enquiry report pending before the Collector was transferred to the Revenue Divisional Authority and as no enquiry was conducted, the petitioner made a representation to restore his authorization. Meanwhile, the Revenue Divisional Authority (3rd respondent herein) conducted enquiry and passed final orders RC,J W.P No.35531 of 2025 4 on 25.10.2025 wherein the petitioner‟s authorization has been cancelled. The said orders have been passed without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 6. Though the enquiry has been initiated in the year 2019, but after lapse of six years, the impugned orders have been passed. The order is not a speaking order and no cogent reasons were given. The explanation submitted by the petitioner is not at all taken into consideration. In fact, the impugned order was passed solely basing on the 6(A) proceedings but not by inviting any separate report. 7. In fact, the 6(A) proceedings and Disciplinary Proceedings are independent to each other and the Disciplinary Authorities cannot base their decision on the 6(A) proceedings. The manner in which the impugned order has been passed is contrary to law and wholly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders. He further submitted that as against the cancellation of authorization, an appeal lies before the Joint Collector, as per clause 24(2) of the Control Order, 2018 and the petitioner, without availing the same, had filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable, as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In any event, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, liberty may be given to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders afresh. 9. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 10. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions of the case, the main ground that has been raised and urged while questioning the orders impugned dated 25.10.2025 is that, no opportunity of personal hearing was RC,J W.P No.35531 of 2025 5 provided to the petitioner nor invited any independent report from the Tahsildar concerned as envisaged under Control Order, 2018, for initiation of disciplinary enquiry and further, the impugned order is based its decision by relying on the 6(A) proceedings. 11. A perusal of the impugned proceedings, it goes to show that the disciplinary enquiry has been done on the basis of the proceedings under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. For initiating disciplinary action, an independent report has to be received by the Revenue Divisional Officer by virtue of Clause 20(i) of Control Order 2018, which reads as follows:- “(i) The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to the Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed before the appointing authority as proposed, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions of authorization…” 12. In this regard, there are certain guidelines framed for dealing the cases on alleged grounds of irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealers vide C.C.Memo.No.21/100/2015-ADI.PP-CCS dated 28.09.2015. Clause (f) of the said guidelines is appropriate for the present case and for quick reference, the same is extracted hereunder: (f) A separate report shall be submitted to the authorization issuing authority to initiate disciplinary action against the dealer concerned as the appointing authority can initiate disciplinary action under the RC,J W.P No.35531 of 2025 6 provisions of the A.P.S.P.D.S (Control) Order, 2008 viz., for suspension/cancellation of authorization/forfeiture of Security deposit. 13. In the present case, while passing the impugned order canceling the authorization of the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not refer to the explanation submitted by the petitioner nor recorded any independent findings by inviting a separate report as per Control Order, 2018 and memo referred supra. 14. Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it become lifeless as held by the Apex Court in Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2003) 11 SCC 519. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, reported in (1971) 1 All E.R. 1148 observed that “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamental of good administration”. Further, in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree reported in (1974) ICR 120 NIRC, it was observed that “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable fact of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Court to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the effected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. 15. The said analogy was duly taken note of by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. RC,J W.P No.35531 of 2025 7 16. As stated supra, the Revenue Divisional Officer without application of his mind independently, based his decision basing on the enquiry conducted under Section 6(A) of the Act. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner is not running the fair price shop since 2019, hence, this Court is not inclined to go the said aspect and now direct the authorities to provide dealer ship to the petitioner, at this length of time. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the authorities by making a representation and authorities can independently, consider the same, in accordance with law. 18. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and ex facie illegal. When the order ex facie is illegal on the face of it, inviting counter does not arise, even after inviting counter, the order will be same. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.10.2025 vide Proceedings in Rc.No.318/2023-G is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting enquiry afresh, in accordance with law. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 20. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date:30.01.2026 Ksj