1 APHC010668192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 34448/2025 Between: Shaik Shajiya Begum ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. AYESHA AZMA S The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings dated 30.11.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent (RDO) vide Rc.No.F/540/2025 wherein the petitioner’s authorization as fair price shop dealer for shop No.1282018 was cancelled, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri B.Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shaik Asif, learned counsel representing Ms Ayesha Azma, 2 learned counsel for 9th respondent 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, the petitioner was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer for the subject shop. He further submitted that, based on the report of the tahsildar, a show cause notice was issued dated 28.10.2025 alleging that petitioner was not present in the subject shop and her brother, who is nominee of the petitioner was running the shop, to which the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 04.11.2025 stating that due to post pregnancy ill-health, she was unable to run the fair price shop and her brother was running the same in order to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders. He further submitted that, without considering the said explanation, without conducting proper enquiry and without even providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the RDO had issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2025 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitoner. 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 3 maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that, 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. Sri Shaik Asif, learned counsel representing Ms Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for 9th respondent contended that, since the petitioner has committed certain irregularities, as a temporary measure, the authorities have issued proceedings vide R.C.No.659/F/2025 dated 04.12.2025 to the unofficial respondent to supply the essential commodities to the card holders. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 7. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2025 would indicate that, based on the tahsildar’s report, the RDO has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization vide impugned proceedings without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, without conducting proper enquiry and without even providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Further, in the impugned notice, nowhere it was mentioned that the tahsildar report, on which the authority has relied while passing impugned order, was supplied to the petitioner. 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 4 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. 8. In the present case, the RDO, before issuing the impugned proceedings cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, has not conducted proper enquiry nor was an opportunity of being heard provided to him. 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 30.11.2025 are hereby set aside. However, the authorities are not precluded from taking steps in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS