The cancellation of a fair price shop dealership without a fair inquiry and proper reasoning violates principles of natural justice and is deemed illegal.

The Court made the following 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.1355/36/2024-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. 0791036 situated at Piduguralla Village, Piduguralla 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.0791036 of Piduguralla Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Palnadu District (Guntur). Since then, he has been continuing his service without there being any remark. Due to ill health, the petitioner forwarded a leave application with duration of six months from 26.08.2024 to 26.02.2025 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.1355/36/2024-G, dated 08.01.2025, calling the petitioner for explanation. Without considering the petitioner’s explanation and any enquiry, his 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 five (05) months had been frivolously taken from the petitioner as though he was suffering from ill health and though the petitioner had submitted explanation on 16.01.2025 for the notice in Rc.No.1355/36/2024-G, dated 08.01.2025, directing the dealer to appear in the office of the 2^nd respondent, without considering the explanation in a proper manner, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.1355/36/2024-A, dated 29.01.2025, cancelling the dealership of the petitioner by rejecting the explanation on the ground that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not sufficient as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the said order is bereft of reasons and cryptic.

04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions vide Rc.No.121/2025, dated 14.02.2025, which are the replica of the contents of the impugned order. He further submitted that the writ petition does not lie against the order of cancellation which is passed as per the Control Order, 2018 as the remedy is to prefer appeal before the appellate authority 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 when it failed to do so, the writ petition filed to challenge such action is maintainable.

06. Perused the record.

07. The alleged letter of the petitioner seeking leave for five (05) months does not disclose any reason for ailment or ill health, however keeping it pending for a long time, the notice dated 08.01.2025 was issued calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted explanation stating that he was forced to submit that leave letter and he is not intended to avail leave and prayed to restore his dealership. Even then, in 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 re