Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :25.06.2026 Date of uploading :30.06.2026 APHC010315942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16673/2026 Between: 1. DAMULURI TIRUPATHAIAH, S/O. GOPAIAH, AGE 48 YEARS OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER RIO D.NO 3-118 KONURU VILLAGE ATCHAMPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT A.P.SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI.-522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPETA.-522601 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SATTENAPALLI REVENUE DIVISION AT SATTENAPALLI NARASARAOPETA DISTRICT.-522403 4. THE MANDAL THASILDAR, ATCHAMPET MANDAL AT ATCHAMPET PALNADU DISTRICT.-522409 ...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 action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.3114/2025-C dated 10.06.2026 by cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0707040 of Konuru Village Atchampet Mandal Palnadu District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India violative of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and directing the respondents to restore and continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop No.0707040 of Konuru Village Atchampet Mandal Palnadu District 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 operation of the proceedings in Rc.No.3114/2025-C dated 10.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent there by directing to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop No.0707040 of Konuru Village Atchampet Mandal Palnadu District and supply essential commodities pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Heard Smt. K.S.G.Padmavathi, learned counsel representing Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. Assailing the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.3114/2025-C dated 10.06.2026 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as the permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop.No.0707040 of Konuru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palnadu District, in the year 2008. The authorisation is being renewed from time to time. An inspection was conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies on 06.09.2025 and certain irregularities were found. A show cause notice vide Rc.No.3114/2025-C dated 25.09.2025 (Ex.P3) was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submitted a written explanation dated 03.10.2025 and 31.10.2025 (Ex.P5). The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.27616 of 2025 challenging the suspension of authorisation pending inquiry. The said writ petition was allowed on 09.10.2025. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh explanation to the show cause notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This Court further directed the authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another explanation dated 31.10.2025. Subsequent thereto, the impugned proceedings, Ex.P1, were issued by the 3rd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither the report dated 06.09.2025 was supplied to the petitioner nor was an opportunity of personal hearing afforded. Thus, the learned counsel would contend that the impugned proceedings, Ex.P1, suffer from a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies supported the order passed by the authority and would contend that the petitioner filed the above writ petition without availing the alternative remedy of appeal under Clause-24(b) of Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Office of the learned Government Pleader did not receive any written instructions from the 3rd respondent. 6. The point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings impugned Ex.P1 in the writ petition are legally sustainable? Page 4 of 7 7. The facts narrated supra need not be reiterated. The 1st respondent issued circular instructions vide CCS.Ref.No.PDS.II(1)/307/2025 dated 05.12.2025 pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2025 in W.P.No.24493 of 2025 and batch regarding the steps to be followed by the appointing authority for suspension or cancellation of a Fair Price Shop Dealer, conduct of inquiry and passing of a final order. Clause (h) of the circular prescribes the procedure regarding the inquiry, which reads as follows: “The procedure as to how the enquiry is to be conducted was discussed in detail in Smt. B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1”. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025 (Smt. M.Aruna vs. the District Collector and others) discussed about the inquiry and observed as follows: “9….The first, it shall make an „enquiry‟ as deemed necessary; and the second, it shall record reasons in writing. As per the Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus, Indian Edition – 2007, meaning of the word „enquiry‟ includes probe, examine, explore, and delve into. The word „enquiry‟ fell for judicial interpretation by the Apex Court in the context of service law jurisprudence. It was held by Apex Court that enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that they do not become empty formalities. 10. 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, as stated above, the concerned authority has to supply all the 1 2015 (4) ALT 572 reports to the dealer, on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer…” 9. The learned Division Bench observed that while cancelling the authorisation, the appointing authority relied upon the report of the Tahsildar. However, the report was not supplied to the petitioner. Eventually, proceedings were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order. 10. No doubt, an appeal would lie against the order passed by the 3rd respondent under Regulation 24(b) of the Control Order. However, a perusal of Ex.P1, the 3rd respondent neither supplied the report nor afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thus violated the principles of natural justice. Hence, this court doesn’t find any merit in that contention. The 3rd respondent also failed to adhere to the circular instructions issued by the 1st respondent. Despite the circular instructions and the directions issued in several writ petitions, the 3rd respondent failed to adhere to the procedure. Apart from that, no reasons were assigned in the impugned proceedings. 11. Keeping the writ petition pending and inviting a counter may not serve any purpose, since the impugned proceedings suffer not only from violation of the Principles of Natural Justice but also from non-compliance with the circular instructions referred supra issued by the 1st respondent. This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition needs to be allowed with exemplary costs. However, to give one more opportunity to the 3rd respondent, this Court refrains from imposing any cost. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of all the learned counsel, with the following directions: i) The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.3114/2025-C dated 10.06.2026 (Ex.P1) is hereby set aside. ii) The 3rd respondent shall issue a fresh show cause notice fixing a date for hearing by enclosing all the documents on which the authority intends to rely upon to the petitioner. iii) The petitioner is at liberty to submit a further explanation, if any, during the inquiry and avail all the opportunities available under law, including the cross-examination of witnesses, if any. iv) The 3rd respondent shall complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible. v) The 3rd respondent shall restore the authorisation of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop.No.0707040 of Konuru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Palnadu District, till a reasoned order is passed as indicated supra. vi) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 25.06.2026 SNI Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 77 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16673 OF 2026 Date: 25.06.2026 SNI