Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. SUJATHA, J
MADIIREDDY RAMI REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 21880/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K SRINIVAS
For the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
Violation of natural justice due to non-issuance of notice prior to suspension.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, challenged the suspension order citing violation of principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing. Court found the suspension without notice or inquiry illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 5-7)
(B) Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Right of hearing requires notice prior to adverse action. The lack of notice precludes a fair opportunity for defense against allegations. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was suspended without any complaints or prior notice, leading to this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
Suspension order set aside, reasserting natural justice principles.
Issues: Whether the suspension notice was given and if proper procedures were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of notice and opportunity to respond before adverse actions are taken against individuals.
Result: Writ petition allowed, suspension order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges suspension without due process. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court examines legal standards of notice and opportunity. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. affirmation of rights to a fair hearing. (Para 6) |
| 4. overall ruling in favor of the petitioner. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“…. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.F/494/2025 dated 01.08.2025 without giving any fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India consequently set asideand to pass such other order or orders ….”
2. Petitioner is appointed as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis, as per the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda on 06.08.2008. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been running the said fair price shop without any complaints either from the card holders or from the concerned authorities.
3. While the matter being so, petitioner was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 01.08.2025. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed and on the ground that neither any notice was given to the petitioner nor there was any complaint from any of the card holders that the petitioner is not distributing the essential commodities to the age old people, as alleged in the said proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondents.
5. On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2025, it can be observed that except referring to the report of the Tahsildar, dated 30.07.2025, neither the proceedings referred to any notice given to the petitioner nor any complaint received from the card holders. Even otherwise, the said suspension order has been passed without conducting any enquiry, as required under law.
6. The Hon’ble High Court of Manipur at Imphal in the Case of Ashok Kumar Rana Vs. The Union of India and Ors. , [MANU/MN/0066/2016] held as follows:
“The fundamental rules of natural justice as have become firmly embedded in modern jurisprudence, may be broadly categorized under the heads of:
“(1) Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, i.e. no one shall be a judge in his own case, or “Doctrine of Bias”.
(2) Audi alteram partem i.e. Right of hearing.
(3) Reasoned decision/Speaking order.”
In present case, we are concerned primarily with the second principle, viz., audi alteram partem.
“Audi alteram partem” is one of the most important aspects of the principles of natural justice which literally means “to hear the other side”. This means the necessity to provide a fair hearing i.e. affording opportunity to the person concerned to explain his position before such person is subjected to any adverse action so that he may be able to explain the facts and circumstances and convince the authorities concerned that such a contemplated or proposed adverse action is not called for. This principle of audi alteram partem requires that notice must be given to the person before any adverse action is taken and such notice cannot be vague and ambiguous to the proposed action to be taken so as to apprise the authorities determinatively the cases he has to meet. In other words, the person concerned must be informed of the charges and allegations clearly against him so that he may be able to fully meet these allegations and defend himself.”
7. In view of the above judgment and in view of the fact that the respondents herein have not issued any notice on the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 01.08.2025.
8. Accordingly, the writ petitio
