K Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K PRASAD, S/O K. MUNIRATHNAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCCIVIL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTOR, R/O. KAMATHAMPALLI VILLAGE, ERRUPALLI POST, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOR DISTRICT, CHITTOR.

¶15

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOR DISTRICT, CHITTOR.

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, IRALA MANDAL, IRALA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus, declare the proceedings vide D.Dis No.(G)/1809/2025, dt.Nil-10-2025 issued by 4th Respondent cancelled the authorization of the Petitioner for Fair Price Shone No. 1052012 of Kamathampalli Village, Irala

¶20

2

¶21

VS,J W.P.No.31283 of 2025

¶22

Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary and a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of A.P. Schedule Communities Dealers (License and Regulation) Orders, 2008, Violation of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of Article-14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings Vide D.Dis No.(G)/1809/2025, dt.Nil-10-2025 issued by 4th Respondent and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 Impugned Proceedings Vide D.Dis No.(G)/1809/2025, dt.Nil-102025 issued by the 4th Respondent, cancelled the Authorisation of the Petitioner in Fair, price shop No.1052012 and duly directed the Respondents to supply the Commodities to the Petitioner for distribution, Pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.HARINATH REDDY SOMA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

VS,J W.P.No.31283 of 2025

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶35

“…an appropriate Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus, declare the proceedings vide D.Dis No.(G)/1809/2025, dt.Nil-10-2025 issued by 4^th Respondent cancelled the authorization of the Petitioner for Fair Price Shone No. 1052012 of Kamathampalli Village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary and a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of A.P. Schedule Communities Dealers (License and Regulation) Orders, 2008, Violation of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of Article-14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings Vide D.Dis No.(G)/1809/2025, dt.Nil-10-2025 issued by 4th Respondent….”

¶36

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶37

a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1052012 of Kollapalle village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District, vide proceedings D.Dis.No.3187/2009, dated 16.01.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner‟s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to card holders without any complaints or blemish record.

¶38

b) While the matter stood thus, on 04.09.2025 an inspection was conducted over the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop by the Deputy Tahsildar, O/o District Supply Office, Chittoor accompanied by the Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer of Kamathampalli and found certain variations in

¶39

4

¶40

VS,J W.P.No.31283 of 2025

¶41

Public Distribution System (PDS) rice and sugar and also that the petitioner is running the said Fair Price Shop through a benami. A report was submitted to the 5^th respondent/Tahsildar, who in turn forwarded the same to the 4^th respondent in the month of September, 2025. Basing on the said report, the 4^th respondent issued a Charge Memo dated 27.09.2025 framing four charges against the petitioner and calling for an explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice and on the same day the petitioner‟s authorization was also placed under suspension vide proceedings D.Dis(G)/1614/2025 dated 27.09.2025 by the 4^th respondent.

¶42

c) The petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.10.2025 to the Charge Memo dated 27.09.2025. Aggrieved by the issuance of the Charge Memo and the suspension order on the same day without waiting for his explanation, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.30028 of 2025. When the said writ petition came up for hearing on 05.11.2025, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies informed this Court that the petitioner‟s authorization was already cancelled vide D.Dis(G)/1809/2025 dated 26.10.2025. The said fact was also accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that though the proceedings has not been served on him, they were affixed on his Fair Price Shop on 03.11.2025. Recording the same, the said writ petition was closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the cancellation orders.

¶43

d) Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the cancellation order dated 26.10.2025 issued by the 4^th

¶44

5

¶45

VS,J W.P.No.31283 of 2025

¶46

respondent, on the ground that the petitioner‟s authorization was cancelled even without conducting any enquiry as required under the Control Order.

¶47

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶48

On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is an admitted fact that basing on the report submitted by the 5^th respondent/Tahsildar in the month of September 2025, the 4^th respondent issued a Charge Memo on 27.09.2025 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within seven (7) days. However, even without waiting for the period of seven days as mentioned in the Charge Memo, the petitioner‟s authorization was placed under suspension on the same day i.e., 27.09.2025. The 4^th respondent, except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is found unsatisfactory and untenable, has not given any reasoning as to what is the material before him to establish

¶49

that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. It can also be observed that as per the Charge Memo the 4^th respondent has framed four charges against the petitioner. However in the cancellation orders dated 26.10.2025, only three charges are referred. The 4^th respondent has not even mentioned in the impugned proceedings as to whether the fourth charge as against the petitioner has been dropped. As the impugned proceedings were passed without conducting enquiry by giving a fresh notice to the petitioner calling him for the enquiry and without assigning any cogent reasons as to how the charges are proved, which admittedly is against the settled law laid down in

¶50

6

¶51

VS,J W.P.No.31283 of 2025

¶52

the decision of B.Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and

¶53

others¹ , wherein this Court held as follows:

¶54

“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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.”

¶57

1 2015 (4) ALT 572

¶58

7

¶59

VS,J W.P.No.31283 of 2025

¶60

Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned cancellation proceedings dated 26.10.2025 as well as the suspension proceedings dated 27.09.2025 are liable to be set aside.

¶61

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 26.10.2025 and the suspension proceedings dated 27.09.2025. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh explanation to the Charge Memo dated 27.09.2025 within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the explanation, the 4^th respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. The respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner‟s Fair Price Shop until any disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶63

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶64

Date: 13.11.2025 KGR

K Prasad v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Prasad 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

Gundapati Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Baby Sarojini Vs the State of Ap

M/S.Sew Infrastructure Limted Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Lanke Satyavathi Vs Vallabhaneni Sambasiva Rao

Pasupuleti Jayadev, Vs a. Poongodi

Smt.Duggineni Nagavardhanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh