The main legal point established is the requirement to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice and provide reasons for cancellation, irrespective of the dealer's temporary or permanent status.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri K.Naga Phanindra, Ld. Counsel representing on behalf of Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Ms.P.Rachana, Ld. Counsel representing on behalf of Ms.N.Revathi, Ld. Counsel for the Un-Official Respondent and Sri G.Raju, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing for Official Respondents.

2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as under:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the illegal action of the respondents 2 to 4 in coercing the petitioner to handover the Shop No.0904006 of Chinthalapalem Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District for which petitioner is working as temporary dealer since May, 2018 to the 5th respondent (Temporary dealer) vide handover proceedings dated 02.07.2022 though the authorization of the petitioner is neither suspended nor removed and it is settled law that no temporary dealer can be replaced by another temporary dealer, only by succumbing to political pressures in most illegal and capricious manner and in gross violation of Article 14, 19 & 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for the above mentioned shop and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper.”

3. The Writ Petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer for Fair Price Shop No.0904006 of Chinthalapalem Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District since May, 2018. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that by proceedings dated 02.07.2022 (Ex.P1) styled as Handed Over Proceedings, the Respondent No.4 directed the Writ Petitioner to handover the charge of the Fair Price Shop to the Respondent No.5. A perusal of the said Handed Over Proceedings dated 02.07.2022 shows that on the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, the Fair Price Shop is forthwith handed over to the Respondent No.5 with effect from July, 2022. It is the submission of the Writ Petitioner that the Official Respondents have not stated any reason for this decision. He also submits that neither Show Cause Notice nor Cancellation Order was furnished to the Writ Petitioner in this process.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that this unauthorised action on the part of the Official Respondents is not only arbitrary and illegal but also highhanded. Having been aggrieved by this conduct of the Official Respondents against which the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition, by Order dated 14.07.2022 this Court had stayed the Handing Over Proceedings dated 02.07.2022 (Ex.P1). On the basis of this Interim Order, presently, the Writ Petitioner is now continuing as Temporary Fair Price Shop Dealer.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has cited a decision of this Court in Dama Srikantam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati and others (2020 (6) ALT 182 (W.P.No.3112 of 2020)), which was decided on 14.02.2020. He has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.8 to 10 of the Order. The said paragraphs are usefully reproduced hereunder:

“8. In the light of above facts, the question is whether the 2nd respondent is not bound to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner and conduct enquiry before passing the termination order. In this context, clause 8(4) of Control Order, 2018 reads as follows:

“(4) The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause.”

9. A plain reading of the above clause postulates that the appointing authority may suspend or cancel th