Date of reserved for orders :--- Date of pronouncement :08.07.2026 Date of uploading :15.07.2026 APHC010488472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 25061/2024 Between: 1. B POORNA SWETHA, W/O.N.SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER, (MEMBER OF ASTALAKSHMI SELF HELP GROUP), R/O.GONUGURU VILLAGE, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CSI DEPARTMENT,. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR/CSDT, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE KUPPAM AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KADA, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. P M KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O.MUNUASWAMI, R/O.GONUGURU VILLAGE, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Order vide Proceedings Roc,B/432/2024, Dt.28.10.2024, cancelling the Authorization of Petitioners F.P.Shop No.1066039 of Gonuguru Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set-aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of the Order of the 3rd Respondent vide Proceedings Roc.B/432/2024, Dt.28.10.2024, by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P.Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.1066039 of Gonuguru Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRAKASH C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVAS 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Heard Sri C.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.B/432/2024 dated 28.10.2024 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as the Temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer vide Roc.L.Dis.(C1)/317/2020 dated Nil.08.2020 (Ex.P3) in respect of F.P. Shop No.1066039 of Gonuguru Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. Without issuing any notice, based upon a complaint/representation made by the 6th respondent, the temporary dealership was cancelled vide Ex.P1. He would further submit that Ex.P1 suffers from a violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, would collectively submit that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer. The petitioner failed to distribute the commodities. Hence, the villagers made representations. Considering the representations, the temporary dealership of the petitioner was cancelled vide Ex.P1. Page 3 of 5 5. The point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings vide Roc.B/432/2024 dated 28.10.2024 (Ex.P1) legally sustainable? 6. As seen from Ex.P3, the petitioner was appointed as the Temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer. In the said proceedings, it was mentioned that the temporary appointment will not confer any right over the fair price shop and the same could be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. In the proceedings impugned Ex.P1, it was noted that there is a disturbance between the cardholders, the Temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer, and also Smt. B.Poorna Swetha w/o N.Sudhakar, a member of Astalakshmi Self-Help Group, Gonuguru Village. 7. The 3rd respondent did not conduct any inquiry before cancelling the temporary dealership of the petitioner. The authority ought to have issued a show cause notice, which would align with the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, are embedded in the administrative law field. Whenever an action, which is likely to cause adverse civil consequences is sought to be taken, the person, who is likely to be affected by such action, is entitled to reasonable opportunity of defending himself (See: State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi and others – AIR 1967 SC 1269, Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India – AIR 1978 SC 597, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India – AIR 1981 S.C. 818). 8. A full bench of the composite High Court in M.Vanaja vs. B.Balaseshanna and Others1, held that a temporary fair price shop dealer falls within the ambit and scope of the expression “any aggrieved person” under Clauses 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. 9. Since an order of cancellation of a fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the 1 2007(4)ALD388 fundamental ingredients of an inquiry. The inquiry presupposes an opportunity for the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records. If need be, such an inquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either cardholders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her advocate, and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross-examining such persons. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, Ex.P1, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the proceedings Ex.P1 are hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude the 3rd respondent from initiating necessary proceedings, if any, in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 08.07.2026 SNI Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 131 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 25061 OF 2024 Date: 08.07.2026 SNI