WP/8513/2023 of SMT.GUJJALA NAGA JYOTHI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 14 April 2026

1. SMT.GUJJALA NA ABOUT 25 YEARS JAYALAKSHMI MA AND MANDAL, KA

1. THE STATE OF A CONSUMER AFFA SECRETARIAT BU DISTRICT.

2. THE JOINT COLLE

3. THE REVENUE KADAPA DISTRICT

4. THE TAHSILDAR, P Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a Writ o of Mandamus, declaring authorization vide proc confirmed by the 2nd E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APR O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 8513/2023 AGA JYOTHI, W/O LAKSHMIKAR R S, FP SHOP DEALER, FP.NO 1182 AHILA MANDALI (SHG) R/O PRODD ADAPA DISTRICT. AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS AIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES D ILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVA CTOR, KADAPA , KADAPA DISTRIC DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , JAMM T. PRODDUTUR, KADAPA DISTRICT ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High or direction, more particularly one in th the action of the 3 rd respondent in ceedings Ref A2/119/2021 dated respondent vide Ref.No 1(3)/2 DESH

IL LAPATI REDDY, AGED 2019 REP SRI DUTUR TOWN ...PETITIONER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, ATHI, GUNTUR CT. MALAMADUGU, SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be he nature of Writ n cancelling the 26.02.2022 as 224/2022 dated

17.06.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural Justice and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 vide Ref A2/119/2021 dated 26.02.2022 as confirmed by the 2' respondent vide Ref.No 1(3)/224/2022 dated 17.06.2022 pending disposal of the writ petition, 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 vacate the interim orders issued in I.A. No.1 of 2023 dated 24.04.2023 in present writ petition, dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SREEDHAR MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following order: Assailing the order of the Joint Collector dated 26.02.2022, confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17.06.2022, whereby the petitioner’s authorization to the Fair Price shop bearing No.1182019 of Proddutur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District, was cancelled on the ground of irregularities committed by her in violation of the Control Order, 2018, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Sri K.Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer for the subject shop and ever since her appointment, she has been supplying the essential commodities to the utmost satisfaction of the cardholders and the authorities. While so, on 13.09.2021, the inspecting officials inspected the subject shop and on the alleged ground of variation in the stock, issued a show cause notice dated 12.10.2021 not to the petitioner, but to the petitioner’s mother. However, as a precautionary measure, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 06.11.2021. He further contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without going into the record properly, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization under proceedings dated 26.02.2022, that too by relying on the report of the Tahsildar under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He further submitted that this Court has dealt the said issue in Writ Petition No.500 of 2020 and held that in order to initiate disciplinary enquiry, a separate report is required to be obtained from the Tahsildar in terms of the Control Order, 2018. Without following the said procedure, the cancellation order was passed, and this Court has set aside the same. He further contended that the Revenue Divisional officer based his decision on the Tahsildar’s report, which was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. It is well settled law that if the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. He further contended that none of the officers or panchayatdars, who inspected the shop were examined and that passing orders without examining them in the presence of the petitioner is contrary to principles of natural justice and not a fair enquiry. He further submitted that as a precautionary measure, the petitioner along with her mother, preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, however, the Joint Collector in a mechanical manner, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. If the said orders are allowed to subsist, the rights of the petitioner would be adversely affected. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned orders.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Department, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders and that the grounds now raised were never raised or urged before the authority concerned. He further submitted that both the authorities, after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as the material on record, have rightly passed the orders and as such, the same warrants no interference of this Court. He further contended that as against the Joint Collector’s order, a Revision before the Collector is very much available, which constitutes an effective alternative remedy. Without availing such remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition and on that ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit, submitted that legal grounds need not be pleaded and can be raised at any stage. He further contended that there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice on the face of the orders impugned and therefore invoking the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, the Writ Petition is maintainable and prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. As could be seen from the record, the show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner, admittedly it was issued to the mother of the petitioner, who appears to be a nominee dealer. Further, in reference portion, the Revenue Divisional Officer mentioned that Tahsildar’s report dated 14.09.2021 which was received on 17.09.2021. A reading of the impugned proceedings of the Revenue Divisional officer dated 26.02.2022 does not disclose that any separate or independent report was submitted by the Tahsildar for initiating disciplinary action. In the show cause notice, the Tahsildar’s report is referred to as dated 14.09.2021, and the same date is also mentioned in the impugned cancellation proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer. This indicates that no separate independent report was submitted by the Tahsildar for initiating disciplinary action. However, it can be presumed that the Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded to initiate disciplinary action solely on the basis of the report under Section 6-A.

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.500 of 2020, dealing with similar facts, considered the case, where the authorization of the petitioner therein was cancelled based on a report under Section 6-A. The Coordinate Bench held that passing order based on the report filed by Tahsildar for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act as well as initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is a serious illegality and contrary to Control Order, 2018. Accordingly, the proceedings in that case were set aside. The said decision is squarely applicable to the facts on hand. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the said ground also.

9. Even otherwise, as could be understood that the authorities did not seize the stock in the presence of panchayatdars, as the record is silent with regard to such seizure in their presence. Further the inspecting officers were not examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the presence of the petitioner during the course of enquiry. Since cancellation of authorization has serious consequences, the burden lies on the authorities to establish the petitioner’s guilt. In such circumstances, a proper and fair enquiry is required to be conducted. As held by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.139 of 2025 and 122 of 2024, such a basic enquiry is mandatory, however the same is lacking in the present case. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground as well.

10. Further the Revenue Divisional Officer based his decision on the 6-A report of the Tahsildar dated 14.09.2021, however there is nothing on record to show that the said report was furnished to the petitioner before placing reliance on it. On perusal of the order of the appellate authority, it is evident that the appellate authority, in a mechanical manner, simply confirmed the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. As such, the order is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

11. For the reasons stated supra, the orders passed by both the authorities are ex facie illegal, contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2022 passed by respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings in Ref.A2/119/2021 dated 26.02.2022 and the matter is remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting a fresh enquiry. Till such time, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to run the subject Fair Price shop. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 15.04.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.8513 of 2023 15.04.2026

MP