Cancellation of a fair price shop dealership without issuing a show cause notice, providing a personal hearing, or supplying the adverse report relied upon is a violation of the principles of natural justice and is legally unsustainable.

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru , issued proceedings Roc.no.96 /2026/A , dated 04-02-.2026 of the cancellation of dealership of Fair Price Shop No.0519009 , Badampudi Village, Unguturu a Mandal, Eluru District , without deciding the case there being any valid reason to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, violation of orders of the Honourable High Court in WA 139 of 2025 dt. 18.03.2025 and consequently direct the 3rd respondents to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioners. Fair Price Shop No.0519009 , Badampudi Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District by setaside the impugned proceedings of 3rd respondent issuing impugned proceedings Roc.no.96 /2026/A , dated 04-02-.2026 and pass such

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 direct the 3rd respondents to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.0519009 Badampudi Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District by set aside the impugned proceedings of 3rd respondent issuing impugned proceedings Roc.no.96 /2026/A , dated 04-02-.2026pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such

IA NO: 2 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 order dated 25.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P. No.5496 of 2026 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass

IA NO: 3 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 Permit the Petitioner to amend the Cause title instead correct address as per her aadhar card. I respectfully submit that due to an inadvertent oversight in the cause title has been incorrectly stated as (F.P. Shop No. 0811051), Mangapuram Village instead of the correct address which is Fair Price Shop No.0519009, Badampudi Village and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. DASAKA MURALI KRISHNA

2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Questioning the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.No.96/2026/A dated 04.02.2026 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0519009, Badampudi Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard Ms.Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the petitioner‟s authorization has been cancelled vide proceedings dated 04.02.2026 without issuing show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing/enquiry. She further submitted that as per Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as „Control Order, 2018‟), prior notice is required to be issued to the dealer before cancelling his/her authorization. No such procedure has been followed by the respondents in the case of the petitioner. In view o