Cancellation of a fair price shop authorization requires adherence to basic principles of natural justice, including the supply of adverse reports and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing and cross-examination of witnesses.

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 topleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 4th respondent vide Rc.(M)4196/2017 dt 16-4-2026, wherein cancelling the petitioner's authorization in respect of the F.P Shop No.1321010, Daivamdinne Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned order dt 16-4-2026 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual 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 pleased to Suspend the operation of the order issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.(M)4196/2017 dt: 16-4-2026, wherein cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of FP Shop No.1321010, Daivamdinne Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool Dist., by continuing the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, pending disposal of the writ petition.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that he has been appointed as a dealer of fair price shop No.1321010 of Daivamdinne Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District and discharging his duties as dealer and supplying the commodities to the cardholders to the utmost satisfaction of the officials and the cardholders. While so, on 06.10.2016 the officials have conducted inspection in petitioner’s fair price shop and found variations in the ground balance of the commodities, the 5th respondent submitted his report dated 18.10.2016 to the 4th respondent for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said report, the 4th respondent issued order dated 20.02.2017 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, thereafter, without considering his explanation, cancelled the authorization by order dated 12.06.2017. Further, aggrieved by the said cancellation order of dated 12.06.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was dismissed on 23.01.2018. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred revision before the 2nd respondent and the same was also dismissed on 24.01.2019. Aggrieved thereby, writ petition vide W.P.No.2530/2019 has been filed wherein this Court, on 16.12.2024, dismissed the same. Challenging the same, Writ Appeal has been filed and the same was allowed on 02.05.2025 setting aside the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and remitting the matter back to the original primary authority for fresh consideration and for conducting proper enquiry. Further, pursuant to the said writ appeal order, the 4th respondent issued show cause notice dated 18.11.2025 asking the petitioner to appear before him on 26.11.2025 along with relevant record. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation along with a request to restore his shop. Thereafter, on 11.12.2025, the petitioner’s authorization has been restored. The further case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent, without giving an opportunity of being heard and without follo