Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
Gujjala Naga Jyothi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 8513/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K Sreedhar Murthy
For the Respondents: GP For Revenue, GP For Civil Supplies
Cancellation of a Fair Price shop authorization is illegal if based solely on a Section 6-A report without a separate disciplinary report under the Control Order, 2018, or if it violates natural justice by failing to provide the relied-upon report or conduct a fair enquiry.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Issuance of a show cause notice to a third party (mother) instead of the authorized dealer and the failure to furnish the report relied upon for the cancellation of authorization is illegal and arbitrary.
(B) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 & Control Order, 2018 - Disciplinary Action - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings based solely on a report filed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, without a separate independent report as required under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018, constitutes a serious illegality. (Para 11)
(C) Fair Enquiry - Cancellation of Authorization - In the absence of seizure of stock in the presence of panchayatdars and the failure to examine inspecting officers in the presence of the dealer, the enquiry is deemed unfair and insufficient to establish guilt. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's Fair Price shop authorization was illegal due to violation of the Control Order, 2018 and principles of natural justice.
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 to issue a Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3 rd respondent in cancelling the authorization vide proceedings Ref A2/119/2021 dated 26.02.2022 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide Ref.No 1(3)/224/2022 dated 17.06.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural Justice and consequently set aside the same and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 to suspend the proceedings vide Ref A2/119/2021 dated 26.02.2022 as confirmed by the 2' respondent vide Ref.No 1(3)/224/2022 dated 17.06.2022 pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 to vacate the interim orders issued in I.A. No.1 of 2023 dated 24.04.2023 in present writ petition, dismiss the writ petition and pass
The Court made the following order:
Assailing the order of the Joint Collector dated 26.02.2022, confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17.06.2022, whereby the petitioner’s authorization to the Fair Price shop bearing No.1182019 of Proddutur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District, was cancelled on the ground of irregularities committed by her in violation of the Control Order, 2018 , the present Writ Petition has been filed.
Heard Sri K.Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer for the subject shop and ever since her appointment, she has been supplying the essential commodities to the utmost satisfaction of the cardholders and the authorities. While so, on 13.09.2021, the inspecting officials inspected the subject shop and on the alleged ground of variation in the stock, issued a show cause notice dated 12.10.2021 not to the petitioner, but to the petitioner’s mother. However, as a precautionary measure, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 06.11.2021. He further contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without going into the record properly, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization under proceedings dated 26.02.2022, that too by relying on the report of the Tahsildar under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He further submitted that this Court has dealt the said issue in Writ Petition No.500 of 2020 and held that in order to initiate disciplinary enquiry, a separate report is required to be obtained from the Tahsildar in terms of the Control Order, 2018 . Without following the said procedure, the cancellation order was passed, and this Court has set aside the same. He further contended that the Revenue Divisional officer based his decision on the Tahsildar’s report, which was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. It is well settled law that if the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. He further contended that none of the officers or panchayatdars, who inspected the shop were examined and that passing orders without examining them in the presence of the petitioner is contrary to principles of natural justice and not a fair enquiry. He further submitted that as a precautionary measure, the petitioner along with her mother, preferred
