Cancellation of Fair Price Shop authorization solely due to a criminal case against the dealer's spouse is arbitrary; proper procedures and principles of natural justice must be adhered to.

JUDGMENT :

V. Sujatha, J.

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.E/795/2025 dt:6-9-2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization in respect of FP Shop No.0805005, Narasimhanayunipalem Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt:6-9-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, and pass any other order this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice...”

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as temporary Fair Price Dealer for the Shop Bearing No.0805005 situated in Narasimhanayunipalem Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District in the year 2021. While the matter being so, as the Village Revenue Assistant along with Village Revenue Officer came to the fair price shop of the petitioner and pressurized her for submitting resignation and accordingly obtained her resignation on 08.12.2024, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P No.1406 of 2025, which was disposed of, by this Court on 20.01.2025 by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc.E/641/2024 dated 10.12.2024, which was issued in pursuance of the resignation and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer as usual.

3. Subsequently, once again the respondents conducted an inspection over of the petitioner shop and basing on the report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildhar, Darri, on 11.03.2025 the petitioner was kept under suspension on 26.03.2025 without even issuing show cause notice, calling for explanation from the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P No.10075 of 2025.

4. When the said writ petition i.e., W.P No.10075 of 2025, came for admission, this Court passed the following interim order on 24.04.2025.

“...Therefore, there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.E/482/2025, dated 26.03.2025 for a period of twelve (12) weeks. Post the matter after twelve (12) weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to submit her explanation to the 3rd respondent. Upon submission of such explanation, the 3^rd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the same by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.”

5. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished a copy of the instructions of the respondent No.3 therein wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 24.04.2025 in W.P No.10075 of 2025, proceedings were issued by the respondent No.3 in Rc.E/482/2025 dated 14.05.2025 withholding the earlier orders issued by the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.E/482/2025 dated 26.03.2025 and duly restored the authorization of the petitioner vide his proceedings in Rc.E/482/2025 dated 14.05.2025. The said writ petition is closed by this Court on 24.09.2025 observing as under:

“…5. As the authorization of the petitioner was restored vide proceedings in Rc.E/482/2025 dated 14.05.2025 of the respondent No.3 i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, no cause survives for adjudication in the present writ petition.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

6. The case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondent authorities having been failed to suspend th