V Shobha Alias Tarasani Sujatha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order respondent in cancelling the or direction declaring the action of the 4*^ authorization of the petitioner^ Fair Price Shop Dealership vide shop 1385018 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal Pradesh vide Rc. No. D/CS/62/2025 dated 21.01.2025 without issuing any show cause notice and conducting arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice alongside violative of the provisions District, Andhra enquiry is illegal, No. f of Control orders and consequently set aside the same and allow the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Dealer vide shop No.1385018 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 orders passed by the 4*^" respondent vide Rc. No. D/CS/62/2025 petitioner Fair Price Shop Dealer vide shop No. 1385018 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. authorization

21.01.2025 cancelling Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER % XpHC010083472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4330/2025 Between: V Shobha Alias Tarasani Sujatha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

AYESHA AZMAS Counsel for the Respondent{S):

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “...may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 4 respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Dealership vide shop No. 1385018 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. Andhra Pradesh vide Rc. No. D/CS/62/2025 dated 21.01.2025 without issuing any show cause notfee and conducting an enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice alongside violative of the provisions of Control orders and consequently set aside the same and allow 2 W.P. No.4330of 2025 ^ the petitioner to continue as Fair Price Dealer vide shop No. 1385018 situated at Dhone Town and Mandal Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh and pass such...

The petitioner was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer vide 30.08.2019 Progs. No.Rc.CS3/231/2019, No.1385018, Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without there being issuance of any prior show-cause notice, the impugned order of vide Rc.No.D/CS/62/2025, dated 21.01.2025 was passed by flouting the provisions of law for conducting enquiry and then take disciplinary action, further submitted that the charge relates to the machine which is baseless. usage of a tin on the weighing cancellation She

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that he had no written instructions. reported He further submitted that against the order of cancellation, appeal would lie before the Clause 24(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State System (Control) Order, 2018. appellate authority as per Distribution Targeted Public

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent authorities had violated the been filed and the same was maintainable. provisions of law, the writ petition had

Perused the record.

Therefore, the impugned order is not vaiid in iaw as it was not passed per the standard required in conducting the enquiry in view of the decision V. State of Andhra Pradesh and of this Court in C. Durga Srinivasa Rao others'. The reievant portion is extracted hereunder: (6) ALD 359 3 W.P. No.4330 of 2025 ^ -

26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, particularly Clauses 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case a routine but should not be exercised in warrants suspension manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show-cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show-cause immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and notice giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation. (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz. containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor indicated in Clause 24 of the irregularities at fair price shops as , one Control Order.

(v) While issuing the show-cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular Court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; EJ„J 4 W.P. No.4330 of 2025 (vii) The enquiry shall be completed than ninety days from the date of as soon as possible but not later suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order.

(viii) The order so passed should be immediately and shall not be implemented till the the period for preferring appeal, communicated to the dealer expiry of 30 days, It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it (ix) is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.”

The harsh action of the respondents in cancelling the dealership of the petitioner requires a detailed However, in the present case, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. enquiry and not just a peripheral enquiry. no enquiry was conducted at all and thereby,