The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper enquiry and opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by the Control Order, 2018, and the violation of principles of natural justice in the cancellation of fair price shop authorization.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order issued by the second respondent in Rc.No.711/2021-B dated 18.08.2022 in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

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

3. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner was issued authorization No.711/2021 dated 18.08.2022. Since then, he has been discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of the authorities and to the cardholders.

4. The Deputy Tahsildar and some other staff inspected the Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village on 19.03.2021 and drafted an inquiry report, alleging certain irregularities and registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Nuzendla dated 26.03.2021, the second respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner by order in Rc.No.711/2021-B dated 18.08.2022.

5. Respondent No.2 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet filed counter affidavit. It is submitted that, on 19.03.2021, the inspecting officials inspected the Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village, for which the petitioner is working as fair price dealer. They found variation of stock i.e. Sugar 64 packets and 8 Kg Red Gram Dal. That apart, the inspection officials have observed that the authorization of the petitioner has expired on 31.03.2020 and thereafter the petitioner has not renewed his authorization of Fair Price Shop No.39 of Murthijapuram Village, as required, which is in violation of Clauses 8(ii)(c) and 8(ii)(b) of the Control Order, 2018. Without possessing valid authorization, the petitioner mislead this Court by filing challana dated 31.03.2022 after completion of inspection, as if he possessed valid authorization, as such the petitioner has no right to continue as dealer.

6. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the ground stocks at subject shop have been seized under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act after drafting mediatornama and the petitioner refused to receive the same. Accordingly, it was served by way of affixture on the doors of his fair price shop in the presence of mediators.

7. It is submitted that, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.04.2021. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, authorization of the fair price shop maintained by the petitioner was cancelled vide proceedings Rc.No.711/2021-B dated 18.08.2022. It is further submitted that, the respondents conducted detailed enquiry in distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner before passing order of cancellation of authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner. After conducting enquiry/panchanama in the presence of mediators, panchanama copy was rejected by the petitioner on 15.06.2023 and thereafter, the disciplinary authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet issued notice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy against the order of cancellation.

8. During hearing, Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the second respondent did not conduct any enquiry, as required under Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (hereinafter referred as ‘Control Order, 2018’). Basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Nuzendla Mandal, the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioner even without communicating the same to the petitioner. The documents submitted by the petitioner were also not considered and no