ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings Rc. No. CS2(5)/237000/2019, dated 9.12.2019, terminating the petitioner's temporary authorization of fair price Shop No. 0816015 of Addanki Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction and to set aside the termination proceedings.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioner has been working as a temporary dealer for fair price Shop No. 0816015 of Addanki Village since the last five years and she belongs to Vinayaka Dwakra Group, Addanki.

(b) On 2.12.2019, the 4th respondent inspected her shop and allegedly found some variations in stock and reported the matter to 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in turn issued a show-cause notice vide his proceedings No. Rc.CS1/6A/230/2019, dated 10.12.2019, directing the petitioner to submit her explanation in respect of the irregularities reported by the 4th respondent for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'EC Act').

(c) During the course of inspection, the petitioner has already submitted her explanation to the 4th respondent in respect of the irregularities pointed out by him, however, without considering the same, the 4th respondent reported to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent issued the show-cause notice to her. While so, the 2nd respondent without conducting any enquiry terminated the dealership of the petitioner vide his proceedings Rc. No. CS2(5)/237000/2019, dated 9.12.2019, without following the principles of natural justice.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing on behalf of respondents.

4. The main plank of argument of learned Counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is, admittedly, a temporary dealer of fair price Shop No. 0816015, however, the duty is caste upon the 2nd respondent to issue show-cause notice to her in respect of the variations found in the stock and other irregularities reported by the 4th respondent and call for her explanation and then conduct a regular enquiry and after such enquiry, if the allegations mentioned in the report of the 4th respondent are satisfactorily established, then her temporary dealer could be cancelled. The learned Counsel would strenuously argue that unfortunately 2nd respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice in the instant case and at once, terminated the dealership of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry on the sole ground that the petitioner was a temporary dealer and her authorization can be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. He would reiterate that even a temporary dealer deserves fair treatment by calling explanation and conducting enquiry, as otherwise, a temporary dealer cannot establish his innocence and stigma attached to him would remain indelible. Taking the Court through the impugned proceedings, learned Counsel would argue that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order on 9.12.2019 and terminated the dealership of the petitioner, however, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner only on the next day i.e., 10.12.2019, which was received by the petitioner on 11.1.2020. Therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to submit her explanation to the show-cause notice because her dealership was already terminated long back on 9.12.2019. He, thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader would argue that the 4th respondent, during the course of inspection, noted huge variations in different essential commodities and the same was reported to the 2nd respondent. Taking note of the same, the 2nd respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. He would argue that since the peti