An adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material or evidence unless the affected party has been apprised of it and given a real and effective opportunity to respond, as non-disclosure violates the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem).

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings Appeal Case No.CS.3/6/2025 dated 07.04.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, confirming the Proceedings Rc.DT(LR)1415/2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner in Shop No. 1318005, Thadakanapalli Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary, colorable exercise of power, without considering the contentions in the appeal, without following the procedure and contrary to Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2018 and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay the Proceedings Appeal Case No.CS.3/6/2025 dated 07.04.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent as well as the proceedings in Rc.DT(LR)1415/ 2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent duly permitting the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop No. No. 1318005, Thadakanapalli Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such

The Court made the following ORDER:

1. Impugning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 07.04.2025 confirming the proceedings dated 23.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization was cancelled, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthirigala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

3. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1318005 of Thadakanapalli Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District in the year 2015 i.e., on 15.05.2014, and ever since, she has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders to the satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. While so, the authorities inspected the petitioner’s shop and on the alleged ground of variation in stock and basing on the recommendation of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar and his report dated 27.11.2024, a disciplinary action has been initiated and accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to submit her explanation as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 03.12.2024 denying the allegations, inter alia contending that she has not committed any irregularity as alleged in the show cause notice and in fact there are no variations in the stock. It is further submitted that the primary authority, along with the show cause notice, did not supply the panchanama and the report of the Tahsildar. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not examine the inspecting authorities and the panchayatdars while conducting enquiry, particularly when the petitioner has denied the charges. However,