ORDER:

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

“..to issue a Writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.B1/430/2022 dated 15.03.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price shop authorization i.e., FP shop No.1046022, K.P.Agraharam Village, Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distrivution System(Control) order, 2018 as illegal and arbitrary”.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without conducting any enquiry as per Clause 8(4) of the Control Orders, 2018 and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the cancellation orders are passed which is contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Kalyani vs District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole1 and Smt. Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool2.

This Division Bench of this Court in M. Kalyani vs District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and Others, held that:-

“In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No. 3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. It is not in dispute that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to the appellant. In K. Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and Ors. 1996 (1) ALD 473 : 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP), it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case

1 2006 (5) ALD 796 (DB)

2 2015 (3) ALD 617

effectively. It was further held that the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfil the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show-cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. In that case the petitioner therein had been given opportunity of personal hearing but even then the Court held that the opportunity was not real inasmuch as the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer. In S. Malla Reddy v. M. Vijayalakshmi and Others, 2005 (3) ALT 100=2005 (5) ALD (NOC) 174, this Court held that the authorization of fair price shop could not have been cancelled on the basis of vague notice.”

Further, this Court in B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, observed as follows:-

10. An enquiry pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. The licencing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry.

11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the