The cancellation of authorization of a fair price shop dealer without following due process of law is unsustainable. The authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry, including an opportunity of personal hearing, recording of sworn statements, and examination of witnesses.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following relief:

“to declare the action of the respondent No.4 in cancellation the authorization of the petitioner F.P.Shop dealer in his Proceedings in Rc.J/1403/2014, dated 04.05.2022, even without hearing petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, high handed, violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Control Order, 2008 and consequently, direct the respondents to set aside the cancellation order of authorization of petitioner and allow the petitioner to distribute commodities to the card holders.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as F.P. shop dealer for Shop No.45 of Ongole Town, Prakasam District in the year 2009 and since then he is distributing commodities to the card holders all these years without any complaint either from card holders or from authorities. On 21.09.2015, the respondent No.5 inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner and alleging certain irregularities seized the stock under cover of panchanama and filed report before the respondent No.4. Basing on the report of the 5th respondent, the respondent No.4 suspended the authorization of the petitioner through proceedings Rc.J/1403/2014, dated 16.10.2014.

4. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.3 on 29.10.2014. Since no order are passed on Stay Petition by the respondent No.3, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.33494 of 2014 and this Court by Order dated 07.11.2014 directed the respondent No.3 to dispose of the appeal within one month. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 remanded the matter to respondent No.4/R.D.O., Ongole, with a direction to conduct detailed enquiry within one month. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before respondent NO.4 on 12.08.2015 requesting to permit the petitioner for examination of inspecting Officers, who inspected FP Shop and also permit to examine some of the Card Holders attached to the shop to falsify the inspection report, but the respondent No.4 did not permit the petitioner as requested by her. As the respondent No.4 did not finalize the disciplinary proceedings, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6380 of 2022 and this Court by Order dated 16.03.2022 directed the disciplinary authority to complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the respondent No.4 by way of representation on 02.05.2022, but the respondent No.4 without considering her representation passed the impugned Order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

5. The fourth respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, filed counter affidavit, stating that the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole-1 inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 21.09.2014 and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole on 22.09.2014. An inspection was conducted in the presence of panchanamadars and as per the panchanama report, huge variations were found during the inspection. In view of the huge variations of stock, the petitioner was issued show cause notice and subsequently, suspended authorization of her dealership vide Rc.No.J/1403/2014 dated 16.10.2014 pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that, the petitioner did not submit any representation to examine the inspecting officers who inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop is incorrect.

6. It is further stated that the petitioner filed W.P.No.6380 of 2022 before this Court, wherein, this Court directed the disciplinary authority to complete the enquiry within four weeks therefrom. It was also made clear that, if no temporary dealer is appointe