Gudipati James Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

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 Writ Order herein prayed that this Honble court or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.C/921/2024 dt 265-2026 cancelling the petitioners authorization and removed from the dealership in respect of the F.P Shop No.0837020, Nallaguntal Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam Dist., the procedure without following as

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

contemplated under AP State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public apart from violation of the Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 26-5-2026 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.C/921/2024 dt:26-5- 2026 in respect of FP Shop No.0837020, Nallaguntal Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam Dist by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.M M M SRINIVASA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶29

The Court made the following order:

¶30

Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, for the respondents.

¶31

Assailing the proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.C/921/2024 dated 26.05.2026 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3^rd respondent failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 09.05.2025 (Ex.P10). He would further submit that the opportunity to cross-examine the VRA, whose statement formed the basis for conducting the inspection, was not provided to the petitioner. He also would submit that there was no difference in the ground balance. However, the authorities recorded a finding that there was a variation of 950 Kgs, and the said finding is factually incorrect.

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, would submit that, on the day of inspection, the dealer behaved rudely with the officials. The inspecting team found a variation of 950 kgs of PDS fortified rice.

¶35

During the arguments, when the Court pointed out that the 3^rd respondent failed to afford the opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the VRA, learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly submitted that the record does not reflect the same.

¶36

Regarding the inquiry, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.122 of 2025, observed as follows:

¶37

“9. Moreover, the power of RDO to impose penalties on fair price shop dealers is derived from sub-clause (5) of Clause 5 of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. The said provision reads as under:

¶38

“The appointing authority may, at any time whether at the request of the authorized fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker or authorized establishment on suo motu after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, add to, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him under this clause.”

¶39

The clause reproduced above enjoins on the appointing authority to follow two mandatory conditions before imposing any penalty as envisaged therein. The first, it shall make an „enquiry‟ as deemed necessary; and the second, it shall record reasons in writing. As per the Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus, Indian Edition – 2007, meaning of the word „enquiry‟ includes probe, examine, explore, and delve into. The word „enquiry‟ fell for judicial interpretation by the Apex Court in the context of service law jurisprudence. It was held by Apex Court that enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that they do not become empty formalities.

¶40

However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop dealer 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

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

Government Servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an „enquiry‟ which in our view must be as described infra. Further, an enquiry pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing including recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, and in case where either card holders or other persons sent any compliant, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer and also an opportunity of cross-examination shall be given to such persons. Further, the concerned authority has to supply all the reports to the dealer, on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. In the present case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, the RDO has relied on the letter of the tahsildar dated 25.06.2023 but the said letter was not supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, without adhering to such procedure, issuing orders in such a manner amounts to passing the orders behind the back of the dealer/petitioner”

¶43

In the case at hand, the impugned order Ex.P1 does not indicate that an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Further, the order also does not indicate consideration of Ex.P10, the explanation made by the petitioner dated 09.05.2025.

¶44

In fact, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies produced the inquiry proceedings and other relevant records. This Court perused the record. However, the record doesn‟t indicate affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness.

¶45

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, with the consent of all the learned counsel. The proceedings Ex.P1 are hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent shall also consider the explanation made by the petitioner dated 09.05.2025 (Ex.P10), filed along with the writ petition, and pass a reasoned order.

¶46

It is brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to Ex.P1, the distribution of commodities was entrusted to the VRA. Since Ex.P1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent shall restore the authorisation to the petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No.0837020 of Nallaguntal Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District, and allow the

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

petitioner to distribute the commodities till a reasoned order is passed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

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

¶50

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶51

Date: 09.07.2026 SNI

¶52

Whether the order is: