Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3214 (AP)

KANAKA DURGA MAHILA PODUPU SANGAM v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/15510/2026 · 2026-06-17

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010294002026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15510/2026 Between: 1. KANAKA DURGA MAHILA PODUPU SANGAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SMT.S.ARUNA KUMARI, W/O S.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, TEMPORARY F.P SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0386260, KOTHA JALARAPETA, CIRCLE-1 ,VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-522237 2. THE JOINT COLLECTORCS, CIVIL SUPPLIES, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-530001 ... RESPONDENTS 3. THE DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLY OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530001. 4. THE SENIOR CHECKING INSPECTOR, CIVIL SUPPLIES, GAJUWAKA PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530001. 5. THE ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL SUPPLIES, CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM-530001. ...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 the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings issued by the Respondent no.3 vide No.88/2026/S4 dated 27.05.2026 in terminating Petitioner's dealership pertaining to Fair-price shop no. 0386260, situated at Kotha Jalarapeta, Circle-1, Visakhapatnam without conducting proper enquiry or affording an opportunity of personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, the A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 besides being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and pass 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 SUSPEND the proceedings issued by the Respondent no.3 vide No.88120261S4 dated 27.05.2026 in terminating Petitioner's dealership pertaining to Fair-price shop no. 0386260, situated at Kotha Jalarapeta, Circle-1, Visakhapatnam by directing the respondent officials to resume the supply of essential commodities to the petitioners Fair-price shop no. 0386260, situated at Kotha Jalarapeta, Circle-1, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S B V RAMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.88/2026/S4, dated 27.05.2026 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri T.S.B.V. Rama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appeared for the respondents. Page 3 of 6 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer, temporarily, in respect of F.P.Shop No.0386260 situated at Kotha Jalarapeta, Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings in Rc.No.Nil., dated 23.12.2020 (Ex.P6). The Senior Checking Inspector, Gajuwaka, inspected the Fair Price Shop on 14.05.2026 and submitted a report dated 25.05.2026 to respondent No.3, pointing out the variations in Flood Rice and Flood Sugar. Based upon the said report, respondent No.3 issued notice vide Rc.No.88/2026/S4, dated 26.05.2026 (Ex.P3), calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why the dealership should not be terminated. The petitioner, President of the petitioner’s society, submitted an explanation on 27.05.2026 (Ex.P4). On the same day, by the proceedings impugned, respondent No.3 terminated the temporary dealership appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 further directed the Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam, to stop the release of stocks under PDS rice to the petitioner and further directed, to get the commodities of FP.Shop No.0386260 distributed through F.P.Shop No.0386148. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither a copy of the special report was furnished to the petitioner nor an inquiry was conducted by respondent No.3, before terminating the dealership of the petitioner. 5. Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, would also submit that, as seen from the proceedings, neither a copy of the special report was furnished to the petitioner, nor an inquiry was conducted by respondent No.3, before terminating the dealership of the petitioner. 6. The point for consideration is : “Whether the proceedings impugned vide Rc.No.88/2026/S4, dated 27.05.2026 (Ex.P1), are legally sustainable?” 7. As seen from the material on record, neither a copy was furnished, nor an enquiry was conducted before the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.122 of 2025, considered the scope of inquiry vis-à-vis cancellation of dealership and at para No.10, observed as follows: “However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop dealer visits the dealer with adverse consequences, 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, 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. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, the RDO has relied on the letter of the tahsildar dated 25.06.2023 but the said letter was not supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, without adhering to such procedure, issuing orders in such a manner amounts to passing the orders behind the back of the dealer/petitioner.” 8. In the case at hand, as noted supra, neither a copy of the special report was furnished to the petitioner, nor an inquiry was conducted by respondent No.3, before terminating the dealership of the petitioner. Apart from the same, the procedure mandated under Rule 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 was not adhered to. 9. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings impugned (Ex.P1) suffer from a clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and also Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Hence, the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel appearing on either side, with the following directions: (i) The proceedings impugned vide Rc.No.88/2026/S4, dated 27.05.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by respondent No.3, are hereby set aside, and the temporary dealership appointment of the petitioner was restored forthwith. (ii) Respondent No.3 shall allow the petitioner to distribute the commodities in respect of F.P.Shop No.0386260 situated at Kotha Jalarapeta, Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (iii) However, this order will not preclude the respondent No.3 from initiating necessary action, strictly by following the procedure. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 18.06.2026 TVN 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15510 of 2026 Date: 18.06.2026 TVN