S Santhamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S SANTHAMMA, S . SANTHAMMA, W/O S. NARASIM H ULU, HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, SHOP NO.1003004, OCC. FAIR P RICE SHOP DEALER, CHOW D ASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, MULAK A LACHERUVU MANDAL, CHITTO O R DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CI V IL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELA G APUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶13

THE COLLECTOR C S, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRI C T.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, MULAKALACHERUVU MANDA L , CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased toto issue, a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in D.Dis(C1)/887/2019 dat e d 20.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent in cancelling the Fair Pri c e Shop Authorization of the pet i tioner in Shop No.1003004, Chowdasamudram Village, Mulakalacheruvu M andal, Chittoor District as illegal, impr o per, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without conducting the p a nchanam or enquiry and contrary to A ndhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018 and also the

¶17

2

¶18

VS,J W.P.No.2871 of 2021

¶19

well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

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 stay the proceedings .D.Dis(C1)/887/2019 dated 20.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent duly permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No.1003004, Chowdasamudram Village, Mulakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District, pencliitig disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶23

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 intereim orders dated 23/06/2021 passed in WP No 2871/2021 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶28

3

¶29

VS,J W.P.No.2871 of 2021

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

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

¶32

“… to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in D.Dis(C1)/887/2019 dated 20.12.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No.1003004, Chowdasamudram Village, Mulakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without conducting the panchanama or enquiry and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2018 and also the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders ….”

¶33

The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1003004 of Chowdasamudram Village, Mulakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District, vide proceedings L.Dis.C1/345/2018, dated 08.01.2019, duly following the selection procedure.

¶34

While the matter stood thus, the 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 10.12.2019, framing four charges and calling for explanation from the petitioner within a period of seven (7) days. For which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation. But, thereafter, the 2^nd respondent herein vide impugned proceedings dated 30.12.2019 terminated the petitioner’s authorization even without conducting any enquiry, only basing upon the report of the Tahsildar and the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

¶35

4

¶36

VS,J W.P.No.2871 of 2021

¶37

When the writ petition came up for admission on 23.06.2021, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim direction:

¶38

“On perusal of the impugned termination order, terminating the dealer ship of the petitioner is not preceded by any enquiry or notice under Clause 8(4) of The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distributed System (Control) Order, 2018.

¶39

Following the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.3112 of 2020, dated 04.02.2020, the impugned order of termination is suspended.”

¶40

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that, in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court on 23.06.2021, the petitioner has been continuing as a fair price shop dealer.

¶41

On a perusal of the impugned proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent, it can be observed that the petitioner’s authorization was terminated even without conducting an enquiry, which is violation of Clause 8(4) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The said Clause is extracted hereunder:

¶42

“(4) The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause.”

¶43

5

¶44

VS,J W.P.No.2871 of 2021

¶45

As no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents before cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, which in fact is a major penalty, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶46

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 30.12.2019 and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶48

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶49

Dated: 23.09.2025 MDP

S Santhamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Santhamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalluru Niranjan Reddy Vs the State of Ap

N Yeswanth Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Desu Rama Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lingamgunta Dasaradharamaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D. Venkata Ramanaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kammila Leelavathi Vs the State of Ap