WP/9468/2021 of Hanumanthu Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 April 2026

ORDER:

Assailing the orders of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings D.Dis.SR.No.13/2020 S5 dated 15.03.2021 confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent in SR.No.104/2019 S5 dated 28.12.2019 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner has been appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for fair price shop No.0126001, Karajada Village, in the year 2003 and ever since, he was distributing essential commodities to the utmost satisfaction of the cardholders and the officials. While so, on 11.09.2019, Additional Civil Supply Officer, Deputy Tahsildar, Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Assistant inspected the said shop in the presence of mediators and found variations, accordingly, basing on the report of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent initiated disciplinary enquiry for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization and issued show cause notice dated 21.09.2019 framing charges. On 21.09.2019, petitioner’s authorization was suspended, pending enquiry. Assailing the same, writ petition vide W.P.No.14870 of 2019 has been filed and this Court granted interim suspension of the said proceedings dated 21.09.2019.

It is his further case that the 3rd respondent surprisingly passed the cancellation orders vide SR.No.104/2019 S5 dated 28.12.2019. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.2112 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on 31.01.2020 without going into the merits of the case giving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent-District Collector which was dismissed under proceedings dated 15.03.2021. Assailing the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that there is no procedural irregularity and the authorities have conducted detailed enquiry and having satisfied with the material available on record that there are variations, cancellation orders have been passed by the primary authority and as there are no valid grounds made out warranting interference in the appeal, the appeal got dismissed thereby confirming the orders of the primary authority.

4. Heard Sri Saptagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the Primary Authority initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner by duly taking into consideration the report of the Tahsildar issued under 6A proceedings of Essential Commodities Act, 1956. He further submitted that to initiate disciplinary enquiry, the authority has to invite separate report from the Tahsildar.

Without proceeding in that manner, basing on 6A report of the Tahsildar, the enquiry has been conducted and thereby the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled. The Appellate Authority-District Collector/2nd respondent herein, in a mechanical manner confirmed the said orders without proper application of mind and without adjudicating on the grounds raised by the petitioner. Even otherwise, when the petitioner has denied the charges framed against him, it is a bounden duty cast upon the Primary Authority to conduct a detailed enquiry by examining inspecting authorities and panchayatdars/mediators in his presence and thereby providing an opportunity of cross examining them. He further submitted that the burden lies on the authorities to prove that the petitioner has committed irregularities contravened to the Control Order 2018.

He further submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 held that for initiating disciplinary action, an independent report has to be invited by virtue Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. In the said case, as the authorities have cancelled the authorization basing on the 6A report, the same was set aside. The said Judgment is squarely applicable to the facts on hand, as such, prayed to consider the said Judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that another coordinate bench of composite High Court in B.Manjula vs. District

Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1 has categorically held the manner in which the enquiry has to be conducted but the authorities are not adhering to such directions and simply relying on the reports of the Tahsildar, passing orders, such enquiries should be deprecated. He further contended that if the authority based its decision on any material, invariably the same has to be supplied to the petitioner while asking explanation. Without supplying the said material, if the authority based its decision, the same would be behind the back of the petitioner and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, as such, prayed to allow the writ petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while reiterating the contents of the counter submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the orders impugned, the authorities have given ample opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation and the authorities, taking due note of the explanation of the petitioner and by taking into consideration the material available on record rightly passed orders. He further submitted that in any event, if this Court comes to a conclusion that the orders warrants interference, the matter may be remanded to the original Primary Authority for fresh enquiry, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

1 2015(4) ALT 572

8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Clause 20(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2018, reads as follows: “(i) The inspecting authorities as and when found contravention of the provisions of this Order shall submit necessary inspection reports for initiation of disciplinary action under this Order. In case of seizure of scheduled commodities, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Order, a report of seizure shall be submitted to Collector/Joint Collectors, as the case may be, for initiating the action under Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Simultaneously, a separate report shall be filed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against errant dealer under the provisions of this Order and for violating the conditions and authorization”.

10. The above clause clearly indicates that in order to initiate a disciplinary action, the Tahsildar has to send independent/separate report to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority has to initiate disciplinary action on that report. A close perusal of the orders of the Primary Authority clearly indicates that the enquiry has been conducted basing on the 6A report of the Tahsildar.

11. In the present case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the authorities have not conducted enquiry as per Control Order, 2018. Further, as could be culled out from the facts and the material available on record, the Primary Authority as well as Appellate Authority has based its decision by relying on the reports of the Tahsildar and it was no where indicated that the said report has been supplied to the petitioner along with show cause notice while inviting explanation.

12. This Court in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, observed as extracted hereunder: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop 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 my view must be as described infra. 10. An „enquiry‟ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross-examining such persons. The licensing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry.

11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing”

13. Similarly, in M.Kalyani v. District Collector, Prakasam District & Ors2 and in M.Aruna v. District Collector & Ors3 has also observed in similar lines.

2 2006(3) LS 191 DB 3 WA.No.139 of 2025

14. In the said judgement it was categorically held that the cancellation of authorization is serious punishment wherein the authorities have to conduct enquiry by examining the cardholders if any or the mediators/panchayatdars to prove the guilt of the petitioner so that the petitioner can cross examine to prove the same/complaints if any. Such procedure has been lacking in the present case.

In the said view of the fact, the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference of this Court with the orders of the Primary Authority and the Appellate Authority which were passed in a mechanical manner without applying their mind independently and without looking into the law on the said aspect. As such, they have to be declared as illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

14. Accordingly, the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings D.Dis.SR.No.13/2020 S5 dated 15.03.2021 confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in SR.No.104/2019 S5 dated 28.12.2019 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Primary Authority to conduct fresh enquiry. It is brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of interim orders, dated 07.05.2021 which was extended until further orders on 04.08.2021, the petitioner is continuing as fair price shop dealer, as such, till completion of the aforesaid enquiry, he shall continue.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date: 02nd April, 2026

RKS