Panga Laxmana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PANGA LAXMANA RAO,, S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRUDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. F.P.SHOP DEALER, R / O. CHAKIPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/JOINT COLLECTOR, , SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, TEKKALI MANDEL, SRIKAKULAM 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, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in Rc.No.264/2019,S4 dated 25.01.2020 by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same

¶20

2

¶21

VS,J W.P.No.5735 of 2020

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶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 suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.264/2019,S4 dated 25.01.2020 by the 2nd respondent by continuing the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of FP.Shop.No.0127118 of Chakipalli Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

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 permit/receive counter copies on record by granting the leave to the respondent in the above writ petition and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

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 grant leave to file the reply to counter affidavit in the W.P. No. 5735 OF 2020 and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.K SRINIVAS

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

VS,J W.P.No.5735 of 2020

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 5735/2020

¶37

ORDER:-

¶38

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶39

of India seeking the following relief:-

¶40

< …to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in Rc.No.264/2019,S4 dated 25.01.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same…”

¶41

The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for

¶42

Shop No.0127118 situated in Chakipalli Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District on 16.02.1993. On 02.08.2019, an inspection was conducted over the petitioner?s Fair Price Shop by the inspecting officials and has reported certain irregularities. Based on the report submitted by the 3^rd respondent, the 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice duly framing nine charges as against the petitioner, on 22.08.2019, for which, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 10.10.2019. But however, the 2^nd respondent, even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner vide proceedings dated 28.08.2019,

¶43

suspended the petitioner?s authorization basing on 6A report. Challenging the said suspension order, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.12768 of 2019, and the same as allowed on 01.11.2019 by setting aside the suspension order dated 28.08.2019.

¶44

4

¶45

VS,J W.P.No.5735 of 2020

¶46

Subsequently, basing on a fresh complaint dated 11.01.2020 received from one Sri Duvvada Srinivas, alleging non supply of essential commodities to 30 cardholders, the 2^nd respondent, even without issuing any show cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner, straight away cancelled the petitioner?s authorization vide impugned orders dated 17.01.2020. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed.

¶47

Respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit duly reiterating the facts that had happened prior to filing of the earlier W.P.No.12768 of 2019, but nowhere has mentioned as to whether any show cause notice was issued in pursuance of the complaint made by one Sri Duvvada Srinivas on 11.01.2020 and that an enquiry was conducted before cancelling the petitioner?s authorization.

¶48

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

¶49

On a perusal of the impugned proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent, it can be observed that reference has been made to the inspection conducted on 02.08.2019, show cause notice dt.22.08.2019, the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 10.10.2019, as well as orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.12768 of 2019 dated 01.11.2019. However, when the initial suspension orders dated 28.08.2019 itself was set aside by this Court on 01.11.2019, the question of cancelling the petitioner?s authorization basing upon the same

¶50

5

¶51

VS,J W.P.No.5735 of 2020

¶52

inspection conducted on 02.08.2019 does not arise. On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that, at reference No.11, the petition of Sri Duvvada Srinivas dated 11.01.2020 has been referred to, but nowhere it has been mentioned in the impugned orders as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation in pursuance of this complaint made on 11.01.2020, which in fact clearly establishes that the petitioner?s authorization has been cancelled without even calling for an explanation from the petitioner by way of issuance of a show cause notice and even without conducting an enquiry as required under control order.

¶53

It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner?s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-Clause(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 which has been held to be mandatory

¶54

by this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others¹ observed as extracted hereunder:

¶55

<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

¶56

1 2015 (4) ALT 572

¶57

6

¶58

VS,J W.P.No.5735 of 2020

¶59

against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra.

¶60

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.

¶61

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.=

¶62

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of cancellation of authorization by the 2^nd 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 others² , it was observed as under:

¶63

2 2020 SCC OnLine AP 755

¶64

7

¶65

VS,J W.P.No.5735 of 2020

¶66

<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.=

¶67

Under similar circumstances, when the authorization of a fair price shop

¶68

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.

¶69

8

¶70

VS,J W.P.No.5735 of 2020

¶71

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 2^nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner, as such, the same has to be set-aside.

¶72

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent is set-aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the 2^nd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to record reasons thereof. It is need less to state that the respondents shall restore the authorization of the petitioner?s fair price shop bearing No.0127118 of Chakipalli Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District till finalization of proceedings, if an enquiry is conducted afresh.

¶73