APHC010673212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SANANGULA BALA TIRUPATAMMA,, W/O. BOREDDY KASI REDDY, AGED 34 YRS, OCC FAIR PRIEE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.0781176 R/O D.NO.25 LINE, GUNTUR COLLEETORATE,GUNTUR, A.P., 522004. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINEIPAL SEERETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SEERETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , GUNTUR, DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. SHAIK NAJINA W/O KASIM SAIDA, D.NO.25 NAGAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.08.01.2026 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2026. 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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 34732/2025 SANANGULA BALA TIRUPATAMMA,, W/O. BOREDDY KASI REDDY, AGED 34 YRS, OCC FAIR PRIEE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.0781176 R/O D.NO.25-16-304/79, SRI LAKSHMI NAGAR, 2ND LINE, GUNTUR COLLEETORATE,GUNTUR, A.P., 522004. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINEIPAL SEERETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SEERETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , GUNTUR, THE TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR SHAIK NAJINA W/O KASIM SAIDA, D.NO.25-16-304/84, 1/5 LAKSHMI NAGAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.08.01.2026 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2026. ...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 ay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of RC,J W.P.No.34732 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SANANGULA BALA TIRUPATAMMA,, W/O. BOREDDY KASI REDDY, AGED 34 YRS, OCC FAIR PRIEE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP 304/79, SRI LAKSHMI NAGAR, 2ND LINE, GUNTUR COLLEETORATE,GUNTUR, A.P., 522004. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINEIPAL SEERETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SEERETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , GUNTUR, GUNTUR THE TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR 304/84, 1/5 LAKSHMI NAGAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.08.01.2026 IN ...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 ay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of RC,J W.P.No.34732 of 2025 2 Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in proceedings vide Rc.No. 2384/2025- B, dated 30.10.2025 issued by the RespondentNo.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently setaside the same and pass such 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 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 May be pleased to permit me to bring the proposed respondent No.6 as respondent No.6 in I.A.No.1of 2025 and also in the W.P.No.34732 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.No.34732 of 2025 3 ORDER The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 30.10.2025 issued vide Rc.No.2384/2025-B by respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional officer, Guntur, cancelling the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.0781176, Tirupathamma Thalli Road, Guntur West Mandal, Guntur District. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as F.P.shop dealer of the subject F.P.shop on permanent basis and ever since she had been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders. It is the further case of the petitioner that alleging that she had utilized the income derived from the subject shop to the tune of Rs.10,710/- for her personal needs without remitting the amount in the DWCRA group account, and that she did not distribute essential commodities to 46 cardholders, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned orders. He would further contend that no panchanama was recorded and no inspection/enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority and simply based on the report of respondent no.5- Deputy Tahsildar, the impugned orders came to be passed and therefore, there is flagrant violation of the procedure contemplated under Control Order, 2018 besides there is violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of effectively defend her case RC,J W.P.No.34732 of 2025 4 and she has not been given the opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Sri Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that no panchanama was recorded, no inspection/ enquiry was done by respondent no.4, that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard and no enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 was conducted and therefore, there is violation of fundamental principles of natural justice besides in violation of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Control Order by solely basing on the report of the respondent no.5-Deputy Tahsildar and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. 5. 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 there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless. RC,J W.P.No.34732 of 2025 5 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, empowers the appointing authority to suspend or cancel a Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer's authorization. This action can be taken in the public interest, suo motu, or upon complaint, following an inquiry and for reasons recorded in writing. 8. In the decision in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, this Court held thus: “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 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 licencing/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.” 9. The impugned cancellation orders nowhere specifies that enquiry as contemplated under Control Order was conducted, no panchanama was 1. 2015(4) ALT 572 RC,J W.P.No.34732 of 2025 6 recorded. Moreover, the sworn statement of the dealer was not at all recorded and the impugned proceedings nowhere states that an opportunity of fair hearing has been provided to the petitioner. Further, the cardholders who allegedly were not supplied with essential commodities were not examined to afford a fair chance of cross-examining them 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 A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 in its true letter and spirit. 10. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, without conducting proper enquiry as contemplated under clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 besides being violative of Audi Alteram Partem Rule. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 11. Since violation of the procedure contemplated under control Order, 2018 and Principles of natural justice is very much glaring, inviting counter from unofficial respondent is unnecessary. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings of respondent no.3 vide Rc.No.2384/2025-B, dated 30.10.2025 and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducing enquiry afresh as envisaged under the Control Order, 2018. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall conduct enquiry afresh and pass orders within RC,J W.P.No.34732 of 2025 7 a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 19th February, 2026. RR