WP/27873/2025 of NEERUKATTU PADMAVATHI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 22 March 2026

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed questioning the proceedings vide Rc.E/470/2025, dated 24.07.2025 of respondent no.3 cancelling the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her F.P.shop authorization was cancelled by respondent no.3 vide impugned order purely based on the report of respondent no.4, which was submitted without any material, without any scientific basis for arriving at the quantum of variation. It is the further case of the petitioner that the explanation of the petitioner was not considered and no reason was given for rejecting her explanation and since the impugned orders were passed in a mechanical manner, without conducting any enquiry and without following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 (for short, ‘the Control Orders, 2018’) the same are liable to be set aside.

3. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3, in brief, are that basing on the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kanigiri that there was shortage of stock and that the petitioner is indulging in diversion of essential commodities into black market, a show cause notice was RC,J

issued seeking explanation, however the petitioner neither submitted explanation nor attended for personal hearing. It is further stated in the counter that thereafter notices were issued and pursuantly the petitioner submitted explanation and upon consideration of the explanation and the documentary evidence, it was found that the dealer had violated the mandatory provisions of the Control Order, 2018 and accordingly the impugned orders cancelling her authorization were passed.

3. Heard Sri N.Krishna Sai, learned counsel, representing Ms. Pangulouru Rachana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

4. Sri N.Krishna Sai learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the disciplinary authority did not conduct enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and therefore, there is violation of fundamental principles of natural justice besides in violation of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Control Order by solely basing on the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

RC,J

5. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, justified the impugned proceedings being flawless and does not suffer from any procedural infirmity. He would further contend that the petitioner has been given a fair opportunity of submitting explanation and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. He would further contend that the final notice dated 25.10.2024 clearly mentions that copy of the inspection report of Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kanigiri along with mediatornama dated 28.08.2024 and other enclosures were supplied to the petitioner and hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary is false. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless.

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

7. Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, empowers the appointing authority to suspend or cancel a Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer's authorization. This action can be taken in the public interest, suomotu, or upon complaint, following an inquiry and for reasons recorded in writing.

RC,J

8. In the decision in B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, this Court held thus: “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 car 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 licencing/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.”

9. Though the final notice mentions that copy of inspection report of Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kanigiri along with mediatornama dated 28.08.2024 and other enclosures were supplied to the petitioner, however, the contents of the impugned order nowhere specifies that such documents were supplied to the petitioner. Further, though the dealer flatly denied variation between book balance and ground stock except for small variations due to rodents, insects and damaged bags, the mediators present at the time of inspection and preparation of panchanama were not examined. Moreover,

1. 2015(4) ALT 572

RC,J

the sworn statement of the dealer was not at all recorded and the impugned proceedings nowhere states that an opportunity of fair hearing has been provided to the petitioner as held by Division Bench on this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025. In the absence of the above, it cannot be said that an enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 in its true letter and spirit.

10. Adding to the above, the impugned order shows that the disciplinary authority did not even attempted to hold an enquiry and he has allowed himself to be swayed away by the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar.

11. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, without conducting proper enquiry as contemplated under clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and since the impugned order nowhere states that all the documents were furnished to the petitioner, the said orders suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Control Orders besides being violative of Audi Alteram Partem Rule. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

RC,J

12. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings of respondent no.3 vide Rc.E/470/2025, dated 24.07.2025 and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducing enquiry afresh as envisaged under the Control Order, 2018. Till then the F.P.shop authorization of the petitioner shall stand restored. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

23rd March, 2026.

RR