Order:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2^nd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner vide R.C. No.1341/12/2024-A dated: 29.01.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0704012 situated at Tangeda Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palanadu District (Guntur) and pass…”

02. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of the fair price shop No.0704012 of Tangeda Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District (Guntur). Since then, she has been continuing her service without there being any remark. Due to ill health, the petitioner forwarded a leave application with duration of six (06) months and the same was rejected and instead some individuals from the Dwakra Group were appointed in the place of petitioner. Despite several representations to the 2^nd respondent, he neither responded nor considered the representations. Later, the petitioner received a letter from the 2^nd respondent vide Rc.No.1341/12/2024-G, dated 08.01.2025, calling the petitioner for explanation. Without considering the petitioner’s explanation and any enquiry, her authorization was canceled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the leave letter for six (06) months had been forcefully taken from the petitioner as though she was suffering from ill health and that though the petitioner had submitted an explanation on 16.01.2025 for the notice in Rc.No.1314/12/2024-G, dated 08.01.2024, without considering the explanation in a proper manner, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.1341/12/2024-A, dated 29.01.2025, cancelling the dealership of the petitioner by rejecting the explanation and the said order is bereft of reasons and cryptic.

04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reported that he had no instructions. He further submitted that the writ petition does not lie against the order of cancellation which is to be challenged as per the Control Order, 2018 before the appellate authority provided therein.

05. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that authority is required to exercise its jurisdiction within the bounds of the law, but as it was not followed, the writ petition was filed to challenge this action, and it is, therefore, maintainable

06. Perused the record.

07. The alleged letter of the petitioner seeking leave for six (06) months does not disclose any type of ailment or ill health, however it was kept pending for a long time and the notice dated 08.01.2025 was issued calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted explanation stating that she recovered health and prayed to restore her dealership. By a simple statement that the explanation was not sufficient as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the impugned order was passed rejecting the explanation.

08. As per Clause XII (x) of the G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dated 03.12.2018, in case of medical grounds, the appointing authority may grant leave for a period of two months duly making alternative arrangements and seeking for leave beyond two months shall be treated as resignation for the dealership and the appointing authority shall issue notification for selection and appointment of a dealer for the fair price shop. When leave was applied, in a reasonable time, it should be informed whether the leave was sanctioned or not, or else, it would result in prejudice to the dealer as by virtue of Clause XII (x), the leave would be treated as resignation.

09. In case of resignation, this Court held in Chi