Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 133
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. MADHAVI DEVI, J.
K.P. Siva - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
W.P.No. 33817 Of 2024
Decided On : 14-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY
For the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The termination of a fair price shop dealership without notice or opportunity to be heard violates principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) TSPDS Control Order, 2016 - Termination of dealership - Writ of Mandamus sought to declare the termination of the dealership as illegal and arbitrary - Petitioner claimed dealership was forcibly taken and not maintained - Respondents contended violation of rules due to unauthorized letting of shop - Court found no notice given before cancellation of authorization. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Fair Price Shop - The petitioner was appointed as a dealer but alleged that the shop was taken over by another individual without consent - Court noted the lack of substantiation for the petitioner's claims of forceful takeover. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as a fair price shop dealer, claimed his shop was taken over by another individual with political influence, leading to the termination of his dealership. The petitioner alleged that he had made representations for the return of the shop, which were ignored. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 5, 6)
Issues: The main issues were whether the termination of the dealership was justified and if the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to present his case before the cancellation. (Paras 5, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of notice and opportunity to be heard before the cancellation of the dealership was a violation of due process, necessitating the setting aside of the impugned order. (Paras 5, 6)
Result: The impugned order dated 21.11.2024 is set aside, and the respondents are directed to provide an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner.
ORDER :
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing order No.1/2646/2024 dated 21.11.2024, terminating the dealership of the petitioner for Fair price Shop No.2386001, Balnepally Village, Adivideverapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State, as illegal, arbitrary and against the rules of civil supply and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and to continue the petitioner as dealer of the said Fair price Shop and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of fair price shop No.2386001 around fourteen years back and it is stated that around four years back with support of local MLA, Kanigiri Srinu, S/o.Harinarayana, the shop of the petitioner has been forcibly taken from him and the said person acted as a dealer in the name of the petitioner without his consent and it is only after the elections, that the petitioner has made representation dated 24.09.2024 to the respondent No.2 with a request to hand over the fair price shop and after considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 issued a circular to the respondent no.4 on 15.10.2024 to take necessary action, but the petitioner learnt that in the last week of September-2024 itself, the authorities have handed over the shop to another dealer as incharge. It is submitted that Kanigiri Srinu, S/o.Harinarayana was having political influence in the Mandal and due to the same, he continued as a dealer in the place of the petitioner in spite of several complaints filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that in spite of knowing the above fact, the revenue authorities have not taken any action and that Kanigiri Srinu, taking advantage of the illiterate card holders of whom 80% are belonging to ST Community, and he misused the commodities. It is submitted that basing on the complaint made by the petitioner as well as other card holders only, the respondent No.4 has made enquiries and consequently, the respondent No.2 has directed to take over the shop. It is submitted that the petitioner’s representation to handover the shop has not been considered and on the other hand, vide proceedings dated 21.11.2024, the authorized dealership of the petitioner has been cancelled. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and submitted that on enquiry conducted by the respondent No.4, it had come to the light that the petitioner was not running the fair price shop at Balnepally Villlage and that he has let out the fair price shop to an unauthorized person by name Kanigiri Srinu, which is in clear violation of the rules and regulations of the TSPDS Control Order-2016 and further that the petitioner was also appointed as temporarily fair price shop dealer and since he was not maintaining the fair price shop and he has not taken any prior permission from the respondents before letting out the said fair price shop to Kanigiri Srinu, the respondent No.4 has tagged the fair price shop to a nearby fair price shop to avoid inconvenience to the fair price shop card holders and the order dated 21.11.2024 cancelling the dealership of the petitioner has been passed in accordance with rules and regulations. It is submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that he has not been maintaining the fair price shop for the past four years. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the fair price shop was forcibly taken from him, is not substantiated by any police complaint or any representation from the petitioner.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court
