WP/6123/2025 of YERRAM PUSHPAVATHI Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 March 2026

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed questioning the proceedings vide Rc.No.359/2025-C, dated 15.02.2025 of respondent no.2 cancelling the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.0715048, Nandigam Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as F.P.shop dealer of the subject F.P.shop on permanent basis and ever since she had been supplying essential commodities to the cardholders. It is the further case of the petitioner that basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar submitted to respondent no.2 with false allegations, the respondent no.2, without verifying the genuinity of the allegations, issued show cause notice dated 30.01.2025 as if there was shortage of rice and that the petitioner had violated the clauses of control order, for which the petitioner submitted explanation and thereafter, the petitioner’s F.P.shop authorization was cancelled vide impugned proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioner that no independent enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing and therefore, the impugned orders having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, are liable to be set aside.

RC,J

3. Heard Sri Ashok, learned counsel, representing Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

4. Sri Ashok, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the show cause notice nowhere mentions for what purpose the said notice has been issued, whether for suspension or cancellation of authorization, however, subject of the impugned order it was clearly mentioned that the proceedings are meant for suspension of authorization, whereas through the impugned orders the F.P.shop authorization of the petitioner was cancelled and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He would further contend that no independent enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner and simply basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, the impugned orders came to be passed 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 and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit justified the impugned proceedings being flawless and does RC,J

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. 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.

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

1. 2015(4) ALT 572

RC,J

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. The impugned order nowhere specifies that an independent enquiry was conducted to ascertain the veracity of allegations made in the report recommending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Further, though the dealer flatly denied variation between book balance and ground stock, the mediators present at the time of inspection and preparation of panchanama were not examined. Moreover, 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. 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 Deputy Tahsildar.

11. Further, the subject of the impugned order clearly says that the enquiry was with regard to suspension of the authorization, whereas the outcome was cancellation of the F.P.Shop authorization of the petitioner.

12. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, without conducting proper enquiry as contemplated RC,J

under clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, 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.

13. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings of respondent no.2 vide Rc.No.359/2025-C, dated 15.02.2025. However, the authorities are not precluded from proceeding with the matter.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