IMPORTANT POINT
A quasi-judicial authority must adhere to principles of natural justice, providing a fair hearing and recording reasons before passing adverse orders.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rekah No. 532/2023/SA B dated 22.1.2024 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of F.P. Shop No. 0202001, Bibbidi Village, Gummadilakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam, District, without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order dated 22.1.2024 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual and pass and such other order or orders.....”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a permanent fair price shop dealer appointed in respect of the shop No. 0202001, Bibbidi Village, Gummadilakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District and had obtained authorization issued under Clause 8 of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The said authorization is valid upto 31.03.2020 and thereafter the petitioner paid renewal chalans from time to time for renewal of her authorization.

4. While things stood thus, the Sarpach of the village made a compliant before the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner has not issued PMGKY free rice to 502 card holders for the month of December, 2022 and not issued PDS rice to the cardholders for the month of May and June, 2023. Basing on the said complaint the 3rd respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 03.11.2023 calling for explanation regarding the alleged allegations. In response to the same, the petitioner herein submitted her explanation on 11.12.2023 stating the subject PDS rice was delivered to the MDU operator for distribution. Without considering the said explanation, the 3rd respondent issued directly issued impugned order dated 22.01.2024 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said impugned order was passed without application of mind. He further submits that no reasons were assigned while passing the order of cancellation being a quasi judicial authority, which is also contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies fairly conceded that, impugned proceedings appears to have been passed, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and sought to remand the matter for fresh adjudication, in view of non-observation of principles of natural justice.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the impugned proceedings are issued by the respondents without observing the principles of natural justice and without following due procedure as contemplated under law. It is a settled principle of law that a quasi judicial authority should adhere to the principle of affording reasonable opportunity to the parties before passing any orders. The said principle is enunciated by this Court as extracted under.

8. This Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and Others, 2015 (4) ALT 572 observed as extracted hereunder:

“9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellat