APHC010703572025 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: 36331/2025 Between: 1. SAIK BAJI IMAM, S/O. S.BIKHARI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. FAIR SHOP DEALER, R/O. D. NO. 6-84 MEDIKONDURU VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522438 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237 2. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522009 3. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522438 ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop (FPS) bearing Shop No. 0725001, situated at Medikonduru Village, Medikonduru Mandal, dated.09.12.2025 without conducting enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 21 and contrary to the express provisions of Andhra Pradesh RC,J W.P No.36331 of 2025 2 control orders 2018 and consequently set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer vide shop No. 0725001 situated at Medikonduru Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District and pass such order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of case. Guntur District vide RC No. 1912/2025-B 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings passed by the 2^'^ respondent vide RC No. 1912/2025-B dated.09.12.2025 by continuing the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer vide shop No. 0725001 situated at Medikonduru Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES RC,J W.P No.36331 of 2025 3 The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop bearing No.0725001, situated at Medikonduru Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District vide RC No.1912/2025-B dated 09.12.2025 without conducting enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Targets Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as a dealer for the Fair Price Shop bearing No.0725001 situated at Medikonduru Village and Mandal, Guntur District and was duly issued authorization. While so, on 23.07.2025, the respondent authorities conducted an inspection of the petitioner‟s fair price shop and noted certain discrepancies relating to the stock of the rice and sugar. A panchanama was conducted and certain quantities of the stock were seized. Based on the report of the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildhar, Tadikonda, a Show Cause Notice dated 24.07.2025 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (respondent No.2 herein) calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why, his authorization should not be cancelled by framing a charge. The said charge reads as follows: Charge 1: That the FP shop dealer has kept a quantity of 5.00 of Fortified rice and 1 Packet of sugar in his FP shop with an intention to divert the same in black market and thus violated Cl.12(f) of APSTPDS (control) order, 2018. RC,J W.P No.36331 of 2025 4 3. To the said show cause notice, he submitted his explanation duly denying the allegations and stating that he had not committed any irregularity in distributing the essential commodities and contended that the charge is false and it is fabricated with an intention to remove him from the dealership under the influence and pressure of the local political leaders. Thereafter, the impugned orders canceling the petitioner‟s authorization was passed. Questioning the same, the writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr. K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that though several grounds were raised in the explanation, none of them were independently dealt nor any reasons were assigned by the Revenue Divisional Officer, for discarding them. It is further contended that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted, and cancellation of authorization is a major punishment. The Revenue Divisional Officer neither examined the petitioner nor examined the official including i.e., Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildhar, Tadikonda, who recommended to initiate disciplinary action. He further contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer relied solely on the mediatorsnama and the versions of the officials without examining either the officials or the mediators who participated in drafting the mediatorsnama in the presence of petitioner. Without examining such persons, passing the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and contrary to RC,J W.P No.36331 of 2025 5 the basic principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submitted that if the impugned order subsists, the petitioner‟s rights would be affected. The order impugned is ex facie illegal and is liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in fact a detailed counter is required. But, however, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. It is his further contention that the respondent authorities have issued show cause notice by framing a charge, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation and that in his explanation, the petitioner did not seek examination of the mediators or officials. He further submitted that the grounds urged were raised for the first time before this Court with regard to the violation of principles of natural justice. The authority considered the material on record including the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and rightly passed the orders impugned. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned orders are passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all legal grounds need not be pleaded and such grounds can be raised at any stage particularly when the basic fundamental rights of the individual are affected. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. RC,J W.P No.36331 of 2025 6 9. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions of the case, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled after issuance of a show cause notice dated 24.07.2025 and submission of explanation by the petitioner. 10. However, on perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner in proper perspective and failed to assign cogent reasons, for discarding the grounds raised therein. The Revenue Divisional Officer solely relied upon the mediatorsnama and the versions of the officials recorded therein. 11. The petitioner, in his explanation, specifically denied the existence of the alleged stock/bags in the fair price shop and in such circumstances, examining the officials, who conducted the inspection and the mediators, who participated in the mediatorsnama in the presence of the petitioner is very essential. 12. However, burden heavily lies on the respondents to establish that the petitioner has committed irregularities before passing the cancellation orders, when the authority based his decision on the version of the officials and the mediators. In the present case, the respondent authorities failed to prove that the petitioner has committed irregularities, by failing in examining the individuals and thereby providing an opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine the officers. RC,J W.P No.36331 of 2025 7 13. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2025 in Writ Appeal No.139 of 2025 held as under: “10. ….the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government Servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an „enquiry‟ which in our view must be as described infra. Further, an enquiry pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing including recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, and in case where either card holders or other persons sent any compliant, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer and also an opportunity of cross-examination shall be given to such persons. Further, as stated above, the concerned authority has to supply all the reports to the dealer, on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer...” 14. In the present case, the authorities have issued impugned orders without adhering to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry which amount to violation of principles of natural justice. As such, impugned order is ex facie illegal and liable to set aside even without inviting counter. Even after inviting counter, the orders would be the same. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date:30.01.2026 Ksj