Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/15944/2023 of U LAKSHMI BHARATHI Vs THE STATE OF AP on 5 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15944/2023 Between: 1. U LAKSHMI BHARATHI, W/O KRISHNA MURTHY AGE.37 YEARS, OCC. FP
APHC010300382023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 15944/2023
Between:
1. U LAKSHMI BHARATHI, W/O KRISHNA MURTHY AGE.37
YEARS, OCC. FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1024020, KALYANAPURAM VILLAGE NARAYANAVANAM MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DIST
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL
SUPPLIES
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR DIST.
2. THE COLLECTOR CS, TIRUPATHI DIST., AT TIRUPATHI.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPTHI DIVISION, TIRUPATHI DIST
4. THE TAHSILDAR, NARAYANAVANAM MANDAL, TIRUPATHI
DIST.
...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 a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.G/446/2022
dt.28-9-2022 cancelling the petitioner's authorization in respect of the of
Shop No.1024020, Kalyanapuram Village, Narayanavanam Mandal, Tirupathi dist, without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 is illegal, arbitrary, and volatile of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order dt.28- 9-2022 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual 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 operation of the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.G/446/2022 dt.28-9-2022 cancelling the petitioner's authorization in respect of the of Shop Shop No.1024020, Kalyanapuram Village, Narayanavanam Mandal, Tirupathi dist,., by continuing the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition.
IA NO: 2 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 vacate the interim order dated 07.07.2023 passed in W.P.No. 15944 of 2023 and dismiss the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Impugning the proceedings vide Roc.G/446/2022, dated 28.09.2022, issued by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.1024020 of Kalyanapuram Village, Narayanavanam Mandal, Tirupathi District, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer for the Shop No.1024020 of Kalyanapuram Village, Narayanavanam Mandal, Tirupathi District, in the year 2008. Since then, the petitioner has been running the shop smoothly and efficiently and no complaints whatsoever have been received from any cardholder or from any authority. He further submitted that based on the report of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner inviting explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation refuting the charges. He further submitted that without considering the said explanation, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and without conducting proper enquiry, the 3rd respondent had issued the impugned proceedings dated 28.09.2022 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer. He contends that the respondent authorities have failed to supply a copy of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar’s reports dated 12.08.2022 and statement of the Tahsildar dated 21.09.2022 to the petitioner, particularly when the 3rd respondent based his decision by relying on the said proceedings. Non-supply of the said report along with the show-cause notice, particularly when the authority has placed reliance on the same, amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while justifying the orders of the 3rd respondent submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing impugned order. He further submitted that the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal before the Collector (Civil Supplies), filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that in the event if this Court inclines to interfere, a liberty may be given to the authority concerned to take steps in accordance with law.
5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel.
6. The main grounds that have been raised and urged before this Court while questioning the impugned proceedings are that the authority concerned based its decision by relying on the Tahsildar’s report dated
12.08.2022 & statement dated 21.09.2022, without furnishing a copy of the said report to the petitioner along with the show cause notice before asking for an explanation and no opportunity was provided to cross examine the Panchayatdars/mediators whose statements were relied upon.
7. A perusal of the record would indicate that the respondent authorities have not supplied the Tahsildar’s report and statement dated 12.08.2022 & 21.09.2022 to the petitioner. Further, the enquiry was not conducted as per the law and no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross examine the panchayatdars/mediators. A perusal of the record would further show that this Court, on 07.07.2023, granted interim order suspending the impugned proceedings dated 28.09.2022. As stated supra, in the present case, the authorities have not examined the mediators in the presence of the petitioner. This Court in similar set of facts passed orders in W.P.No.36331 of 2025 by relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of Court in W.A.No.139 of 2025. In view of the same, the order impugned is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the principles of natural justices and is liable to be set aside.
8. The impugned proceedings vide Roc.G/446/2022, dated 28.09.2022, issued by the 3rd respondent-RDO is hereby set aside and the 3rd respondent-RDO is directed to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with law. Till then, the petitioner shall continue as fair price shop dealer.”
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 06th March, 2026
RKS