(Prayer: 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the Proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the 3RD respondent herein, in Rc.No.1779/2024 C.S, dt.20.11.2025, Cancelled authorization of the petitioner herein, as F.P. Shop dealer without giving any opportunityand without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018, and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as may be just and necessary.

IA 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 pleased to, direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to distribute the Essential Commodities to the respective card holders attached to the F.P.Shop No.0106034 in Lakshmipuram village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District, by suspending the operation of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the 3^"^ respondent herein, in Rc.No. 1779/2024 C.S, dt.20.11.2025,, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass)

1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

                  “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the Proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the 3rd respondent herein, in Rc.No.1779/2024 C.S, dt.20.11.2025, Cancelled authorization of the petitioner herein, as F.P.Shop dealer without giving any opportunity and without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018, and set aside the same and pass such other order…”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.0106034 in Lakshmipuram Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District, in the year 1994. The petitioner‟s authorization has been extended from time to time and is valid up to 31.03.2025 and thereafter the petitioner applied for further renewal through online application on 24.07.2025. The case of the petitioner is also that the petitioner is distributing essential commodities to the cardholders to the best satisfaction of everyone.

3. While things stood thus, on 04.11.2025, basing on a complaint received from the villagers of Lakshmipuram Village, Laveru Mandal, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 03.11.2025, directed the CSDT, RDO‟s Office along with CSDT, Ranastalam and CSDT, Jalumuru, to proceed to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop on 04.11.2025. Accordingly, the said officers proceeded to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop, enquired with the cardholders on the allegations made in the complaint as against the dealer and submitted a report to the 3rd and 4th respondents to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner herein. Basing upon the same, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice duly framing six charges against the petitioner, calling for an explanation within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of copy of the said notice, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 13.11.2025.

4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that, in spite of the same, the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry after receiving the explanation from the petitioner, straightaway cancelled the petitioner‟s authorization vide the impugned orders dated 20.11.2025. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Assistant Government Pleader reported that an alternative arrangement had already been made by appointing the 5th respondent to run the said Fair Price Shop. Accordingly, notice was ordered to the 5th respondent and thereafter Mr. Siva Prasad Reddy Veneti, learned counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the 5th respondent also.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for 1st to 4th respondents and learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

7. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that, in pursuance of a complaint received from the villagers of Lakshmipuram Village, Laveru Mandal, against the petitioner, on the instructions of the 3rd respondent, the inspecting officials inspected the Fair Price Shop on 04.11.2025 and enquired with the cardholders on the allegations made in the complaint as against the petitioner and submitted a report to the 3rd and 4th respondents to initiate disciplinary action. Basing upon the same, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice duly framing seven charges, which are as under:-

                  Charge-1: The fair price shop dealer has failed to renew her authorization as per clause 5 of Form-ll, Form of Authorization under AP Targeted Public Distribution System (Contro order-2018.

                  Charge-2: No authorized fair shop dealer shall sell or agree to sell or supply or agree to supply the scheduled commodities to cardholders /beneficiaries other than for household consumption at such prices and scale of distribution through the method provided for authentication of beneficiary and correct weighment/measurement as specified by State Govt. Thus the FP Shop dealer has contravened clause 11 of AP Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) order-2018.

                  Charge-3: The fair price Shop dealer shall make available scheduled commodities physically as per the balances shown in the electronic Point of Sale generated prints to cross check the variation (excess) in stocks. Thus the respondent contravened the clause 12(p)(3) of AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018.

                  Charge-4: During enquiry with cardholders, it is revealed that the Fair Price shop dealer is not Issuing receipts to the cardholders. Hence, the respondent has contravened clause 10(c) of APSTPDS(Control) order, 2018 i.e., Non-issue of receipts intentionally to the consumers.

                  Charge-5: The fair price shop dealer has failed to display the updated price board and stock board at fair price shop premises on daily basis thereby contravening clause 12(n) of AP Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) order 2018 and it has came to the notice of the Inspection Officials during their surprise visit.

                  Charge-6: The fair Price Shop dealer failed to maintain the prescribed timings and closing the Fair Price Shop during the scheduled distribution period and acting as per whims and fancies. This act is in contravention of Clause 8(14) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, which mandates that the Fair Price Shop shall remain open on all working days from 08:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon and from 04:00 P.M. to 08:00 PM. for the distribution of scheduled commodities to the beneficiaries.

                  Charge-7: The fair price shop dealer failed to maintain good behavior with the cardholders and violated the instructions Issued by the Govt./ Commissioner of Civil Supplies from time to time.

8. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 13.11.2025 for each and every charge duly stating that the petitioner‟s authorization has been renewed up to 31.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner‟s has also paid the challan through online for further renewal on 24.07.2025 and instead of considering the same, the respondents have treated that his authorization has not been renewed further. For the 2nd charge the petitioner has specifically stated that the so called statements of the mediators relied upon by the inspecting team are given by the complainants who have not drawn ration from her shop for the past six months. For the 3rd charge, the petitioner has specifically stated that initially in the month of March, when the petitioner‟s authorization was placed under suspension, the petitioner was constrained to approached this Court vide W.P.No.19524 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.04.2025. In pursuance of which, the petitioner‟s authorization was restored and during the period of suspension, the physical stocks were handed over and maintained by the SHG group in the presence of the VRO on 29.04.2025. At the time of handing over the stocks after restoration, the petitioner has noticed that there is some short fall in the stocks delivered to her by previous incumbent, who did not deliver the stocks shown in OB i.e., PDS rice-895kgs, R.G.DAL-3 packets, Sugar-64 packets and though she has brought to the notice of the authorities regarding the said shortfall, no action has been initiated as against the said SHG group member, who has appointed on temporary basis. For the remaining other charges also the petitioner has specifically stated that the petitioner has been regularly displaying the price and stock boards at the Fair Price Shop premises and more over that the alleged cardholders who raised allegation as against the petitioner has never drawn ration from her shop for the past few months. But however, the 3rd respondent have failed to conduct an enquiry as required under the control order either by enquiring the cardholders or the complainants basing upon which the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated as against the petitioner. Admittedly, the impugned orders are being passed solely basing upon basing upon the complaints raised by a few cardholders without even examining them and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that the petitioner‟s authorization was cancelled basing upon Charge No.1 alone. However, on a perusal of the impugned proceedings, there is no mention that the other six charges were dropped.

10. In B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others(2015 (4) ALT 572) this Court 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.”

11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the 3rd respondent is without considering the explanation of the petitioner and no reasons were assigned and no enquiry was conducted in relation to the objections and contentions raised in the explanation, which is against the principles of natural justice. In K. Prabhavathi v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others(2020 SCC OnLine AP 755), it was observed as under:

                  “11. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima-facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry.”

12. Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop dealer was suspended even without considering her explanation, the writ petition (W.P.No.18006 of 2024) preferred by the fair price shop dealer was dismissed on the ground that there is an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the fair price shop dealer preferred a writ appeal (W.A.No.122 of 2025) before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, on examining the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that as the authorization of the appellant therein was suspended without trying to test the veracity of the explanation offered, the said writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the suspension order passed by the authorities and the matter was remitted back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration for conducting proper enquiry.

13. Once the petitioner submits an explanation pursuant to a show cause notice, the concerned authorities must evaluate it thoroughly and shall issue a reasoned order to justify their actions. Without doing so, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside.

14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent is set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for conducting a detailed enquiry by examining the cardholders and the villagers who have raised the complaint, which is the basis for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, by serving a copies of the statements so recorded on the petitioner and by issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner, thereby affording an opportunity of hearing. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

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