ORDER:

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

“…to issue a writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus questioning the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in cancelling the fair price shop dealership held by the petitioner fair price shop No.1205038 held by the petitioner at Nalladasaripalli village, Guntakal Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without there being any order for cancellation and without following any procedure under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of A.P Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequentially direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold the fair price shop No.1205038 held by the petitioner at Nalladasaripalli Village, Guntakal Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District and pass other order or orders…”

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

The petitioner is appointed as dealer of fair price shop No.1205038 at Nalladasaripalli village, Guntakal mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Ananthapur District on permanent basis since 2006 and the authorization of the petitioner is valid till March, 2025. On 30.12.2024, the CSDT of the Civil Supplies Department came to the petitioner’s shop and took his signature and instructed him orally that the fair price shop was allotted in favour of 6^th respondent. The petitioner requested the 4^th and the 5^th respondents and they replied that due to changes in the government, there are political pressures. The respondents, without issuing any notice or without any order of cancellation of the dealership, stopped providing essential goods and cancelled the dealer of the petitioner which causes irreparable loss to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case was foisted as though an inspection was held in the presence of the dealer which is evident from the written instructions submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. In this regard he submitted that it was mentioned in the instructions that the dealer was not in the village at the time of inspection and hence, her son who was present co-operated for enquiry/inspection, but both the panchanama and the alleged statement of the dealer contained the signature of the dealer. Therefore, he submitted that false documents were prepared by high-handedly obtaining the signatures of the dealer on the documents prepared by the officials to suit their purpose of terminating the dealership of the petitioner. With regard to the respondent No.6, he submitted that he had been impleaded under the impression that he was appointed as a temporary dealer of the shop of the petitioner, but the written instructions indicated that no such appointment had been made. However, he submitted that as this Court directed issue of notice, it had been sent.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there was huge variation of the stock as shown in the table here below and that he has no latest instructions as to whether there was any order of suspension passed after the written instructions dated 04.01.2025.

5. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the instructions to him, the petitioner has not received any order of suspension of the authorisation, but essential commodities are not being supplied to the petitioner for distribution.

6. In view of the serious allegations and counter allegations, this matter requires a det