ORDER:

Or This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in not issuing any show cause notice nor conducting any inspection and panchanama and directly issuing suspension proceedings vide No.R.C.E/551/2024 dated 02.12.2024 (sic 02.11.2024) without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently to set aside the same by directing the respondents to allot the commodities to the fair price shop No.0813007 Darsi Nagara Panchayati, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District and permit the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holders. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer of fair price shop No.0813007 Darsi Nagara Panchayati, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District on 25.08.2019. Since then, the petitioner has been running fair price shop without there being any complaint. On 04.11.2024, the VRO of Darsi Nagara Panchayati, Darsi Mandal served a copy of proceedings dated 02.11.2024 issued by RDO of Kanigiri Division vide proceedings R.C.E/551/2024 basing on the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector and VRO, the Tahsildar, reported dated 10.10.12024 to the 3rd respondent alleging that a complaint had been received from the cardholders of Darsi Nagara Panchayat.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without issuing any show cause notice or conducting a detailed enquiry, the dealership of the petitioner was cancelled.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, dated 25.11.2024 and submitted that in view of the complaint of the cardholders, the dealership of the petitioner was cancelled and that the appointment of the petitioner is purely on temporary basis. He further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has to file an appeal since the dealership was cancelled.

5. The temporary dealer is entitled to the same protection as a regular dealer as held by this Court in M. Vanaja vs B. Balaseshanna And Ors.1 wherein it was held that the expression “any person aggrieved” appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Control Order comprehends within itself a temporary fair price shop dealer and the latter has locus to challenge an order made under Clause 5 or under Clause 20(1) or 20(2) of the Control Order by filing appeal or revision, as the case may be.

6. This High Court dealt with the procedure to be followed for holding enquiry in C. Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh2 in para No.27 held as follows.

“27. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, (2008), more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn.

(i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind;

(ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power;

(iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation;

(iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of

1 2007(4) ALD 388

2 2015 SCC Online Hyd 680

authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair