Subtitle
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that temporary fair price shop dealer natural justice principles protect even temporary fair price shop dealers, requiring authorities to conduct an enquiry and provide a fair hearing before cancelling their authorization.
Court Sets Aside Action Against Temporary Dealer
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that authorities cannot cancel the authorization of a fair price shop dealer, whether permanent or temporary, without following the procedure prescribed by law. The Court stressed that temporary fair price shop dealer natural justice requirements apply before any cancellation.
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in Writ Petition No.19099 of 2024 filed by Sri Durga Mahila Podupu Sangam Self Help Group, represented by its President, Smt. D.V.L. Bhavani.
Petitioner Challenged Termination Order
The petitioner challenged the proceedings dated 03.08.2024 issued by the District Civil Supply Officer, Visakhapatnam City. The officer terminated the dealership of Fair Price Shop No.0386103 at Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.
The same order assigned the shop’s distribution work to respondent No.5, Mr. Jeevan Kumar, the permanent dealer of another fair price shop.
Appointment as Temporary Dealer
The petitioner stated that the then Collector of Visakhapatnam appointed it as the temporary dealer on 27.10.2020 after the permanent dealer passed away.
The petitioner argued that it had been running the fair price shop since then. It also contended that the authorities ended the dealership without following the procedure under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018.
Allegations Based on MLA’s Letter
The petitioner submitted that the MLA of Visakhapatnam West Constituency wrote to the District Civil Supply Officer after the political situation changed. The letter alleged that cardholders in Wards 90 and 92 had complained about irregular ration distribution.
The petitioner denied the allegations. It claimed that the MDU operator had already delivered the July 2024 ration to all cardholders. It argued that the authorities could not terminate the dealership solely on the basis of complaints without conducting an enquiry.
Petitioner Relied on Earlier Ruling
The petitioner relied on K. Bharath v. The Collector (Civil Supplies). In that case, the High Court held that a temporary dealer could continue until authorities removed the dealer according to law.
The petitioner argued that authorities cannot remove a dealer merely because the appointment is temporary if they fail to establish the charges.
State’s Stand
The Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies argued that an MLA may recommend action if cardholders report malpractice.
However, the State also submitted that if the Court decided to interfere, it could allow the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
Court Finds Violation of Natural Justice
The Court noted that both sides accepted that the petitioner served as a temporary dealer.
The Court also observed that it had earlier stayed the termination order. As a result, the petitioner continued operating the fair price shop during the pendency of the case.
Enquiry Required Before Cancellation
The Court held that authorities must conduct an enquiry before cancelling the authorization of either a permanent or temporary dealer.
The Court found that the authorities violated the principles of natural justice. It therefore disposed of the writ petition without examining the merits of the allegations.
Final Directions
The Court directed that the petitioner would continue operating the fair price shop under the earlier interim order.
The Court also clarified that the authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings if circumstances justify such action. However, they must strictly follow the 2018 Control Order and all applicable legal requirements.
Opportunity of Hearing Mandatory
The Court emphasized that authorities must give the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard before taking any future action.
It further directed the authorities to act independently and not allow any observations in the present order to influence their decision.
