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 orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing proceeding RC. No. CS2(5)/239533/2019, dated 03-01-2020, in terminating the FP Shop No. 0814031 of Kammavaripallem village, Mundlamuri Mandal, Prakasam District of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitray, violation of principles of Natural Justice and violation of Art. 14, 21 of constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the termination proceedings vide RC. No. CS2(5)/239533/2019, dated 03-01-2020, issued by the Respondent No. 2.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

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 proceedings vide RC. No. CS2(5)/239533/2019, dated 03-01-2020, issued by the Respondent No. 2, in terminating the FP Shop No. 0814031 of Kammavaripallem village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.:— The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondent in issuing proceedings Rc. No. CS2(5)/239533/2019, dated 03.01.2020, terminating the petitioner's temporary authorization of fair price shop No. 0814031 of Kammavaripalem Village, Mundlamuri Mandal, Prakasam District, without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural Justice and for a consequential direction and to set aside the termination proceedings.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioner has been working as a temporary dealer for fair price shop No. 0814031 of Kammavaripalem Village since last six months and she belongs to Sri. Sambasiva Dwakra Group, Kammavaripalem.

(b) On 03.12.2019, the 4 respondent inspected her shop and allegedly found some variations in stock and reported the matter to 2 respondent. The 2 respondent in turn issued a show cause notice vide his proceedings No. Rc.CSl/6A/236/2019, dated 16.12.2019, directing the petitioner to submit her explanation in respect of the irregularities reported by the 4 respondent for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘EC Act’).

(c) During the course of inspection, the petitioner has already submitted her explanation to the 4 respondent in respect of the irregularities pointed out by him, however, without considering the same, the 4 respondent reported to the 2 respondent and the 2nd respondent issued the show-cause notice to her. While so, the 2 respondent without conducting any enquiry terminated the dealership of the petitioner vide his proceedings Rc. No. CS2(5)/239533/2019, dated 03.01.2020, without following the principles of natural justice.

3. Hence, the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. Madhava Rao Nalluri and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing on behalf of respondents.

5. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is, admittedly, a temporary dealer of fair price shop No. 0814031, however, the duty is caste upon the 2 respondent to issue show-cause notice to her in respect of the variations found in the stock and other irregularities reported by the 4 respondent and call for her explanation and then conduct a regular enquiry and after such enquiry, if the allegations mentioned in the report of the 4 respondent are satisfactorily established, then her temporary dealer could be cancelled. The learned counsel would strenuously argue that unfortunately 2 respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice in the instant case and at once, terminated the dealership of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry on the sole ground that the petitioner was a temporary dealer and her authorization can be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. He would reiterate that even a temporary dealer deserves fair treatment by calling explanation and conducting enquiry, as otherwise, a temporary dealer cannot establish his innocence and stigma attached to him would remain indelible. Taking the court through the impugned proceedings, learned counsel would argue that the 2 respondent passed the impugned order on 03.01.2020 and terminated the dealership of the petitioner. Immediately, she filed an appeal along with stay petition before the 2 respondent and the same is pending, however, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.12.2019. Therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to submit her explanation to the show-cause notice because her dealership was already terminated long back on 03.01.2020. He, thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader would argue that the 4 respondent, during the course of inspection, noted huge variations in different essential commodities and the same was reported to the 2 respondent. Taking note of the same, the 2 respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. He would argue that since the petitioner was only a temporary dealer, her dealership can be cancelled at any time without assigning any reason and therefore, there was no illegality in the order impugned.

7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?

8. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. Admittedly, the petitioner was a temporary dealer of fair price shop No. 0814031 of Kammavaripalem Village and the 4 respondent inspected her shop on 03.12.2019 and found certain variations in the stock maintained by her and he, thus, reported to the 2 respondent for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of EC Act. The impugned order shows that the 2 respondent having noted that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Control Order, 2018, cancelled her authorization. In the said order, he observed that the petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer and her dealership is liable for cancellation at any time without assigning any reasons and without prior intimation, if the maintenance of fair price shop is not satisfactory to the appointing authority and any irregularities are noticed by the inspecting authorities in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. Thus, from the said order it is discernible that the 2 respondent was of the view that since the petitioner is a temporary dealer, her dealership could be cancelled at any time without assigning any reason and without prior intimation, provided her maintenance of the dealership was not satisfactory to the authorities. Be that it may, the said order was passed on 03.01.2020. While so, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.12.2019. It is pertinent to note that when the 2 respondent was of the view that since the petitioner was a temporary dealer and her dealership could be cancelled at any time without assigning any reason and without prior intimation, it is quite obvious that no enquiry was conducted before cancelling the authorization.

9. In the light of above facts, the question is whether the 2 respondent is not bound to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner and conduct enquiry before passing the termination order. In this context, clause 8(4) of Control Order, 2018 reads as follows:

“(4) The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause.”

10. A plain reading of the above clause postulates that the appointing authority may suspend or cancel the authorization after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and after recording reasons. Therefore, conducting of enquiry is sine qua non for suspension or cancellation of authorization. It is pertinent to note that clause 8(4) has not made any distinction between a temporary dealer and a permanent dealer regarding the essentiality of conducting enquiry for either suspension or cancellation of authorization. Therefore, the 2 respondent cannot just terminate the authorization of the petitioner without conducting enquiry on the pretext of her being a temporary dealer. It should be noted that the temporary dealer may be terminated from the dealership honourably by retrieving back her dealership. In such a case, probably, the civil supplies authorities need not issue prior notice or assigning any reason. If the authorities make any allegations about the conduct of a fair price shop dealer, either he/she is temporary or permanent one, in such an event, they cannot simply terminate the authorization of such dealer without issuing show-cause notice calling for the explanation and conducting the enquiry. If the dealership is terminated without following the principles of natural justice, invariably, stigma of bad conduct imputed against such dealer (either temporary or permanent one) will remain forever and he will not have an opportunity to establish his innocence. Therefore, it is not correct to say that no enquiry need to be conducted against a temporary dealer. He is also an aggrieved person like a permanent dealer.

11. In M. Vanaja v. B. Balaseshanna 2007 (4) ALD 388 = 2008 (1) ALT 520’, a full bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh was engaged with the question whether a temporary fair price shop dealer falls within the ambit and scope of the expression “any aggrieved person” used in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, it held thus:

“26. If the expression “any person aggrieved” appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 is interpreted keeping in view the scheme of the Control Order, there cannot be any doubt that the said expression takes within its ambit a temporary fair price shop dealer and even a cardholder. The temporary fair price shop dealer is required to comply with all those conditions, which are applicable to a regular or a permanent fair price shop dealer. His/her functions are identical to that of regular/permanent fair price shop dealer. His authorisation can also be suspended or cancelled or altered in terms of Clause 5(4) of the Control Order. Once the authorisation of a permanent/regular fair price shop dealer is suspended or cancelled and a temporary fair price shop dealer is appointed in his/her place, the latter acquires a substantive interest to run the fair price shop. If the order of suspension or cancellation of authorisation of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer is stayed or set aside, the temporary fair price shop dealer is the immediate person who is adversely affected inasmuch as his right to operate the fair price shop will get stultified by restoration of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer. To put it differently, the authorisation of a temporary fair price shop dealer may not create a vested right in him, but he will certainly be a person affected by reinstatement of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer and, therefore, he will certainly have the locus to question the reinstatement of the regular/permanent fair price shop dealer by filing an appeal under Clause 20 and revision under Clause 21, and we do not see any reason to give a restricted interpretation to the expression “any person aggrieved.” It is quite possible to visualize a case in which the appellate authority may, without assigning any reason or for extraneous consideration, restore the authorisation of a permanent/regular fair price shop dealer despite the fact that he may have been found guilty of grave financial or other irregularities and gross violation of the conditions. If a narrow interpretation is placed on the expression “any person aggrieved” appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 and it is held that the temporary fair price shop dealer and/or the beneficiary of the public distribution system is not “an aggrieved person”, then there will be none to challenge patently illegal or arbitrary order passed by the appellate authority. This will not at all be conducive to larger public interest. Even otherwise, we are convinced that the expression “any person aggrieved” appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 must, keeping in view the scheme of the Control Order, receive liberal construction so as to enable any affected or interested person to challenge the order made by the competent authority under Clause 5.

33. In the result, the reference is answered in the following terms:

The expression “any person aggrieved” appearing in Clauses 20 and 21 of the Control Order comprehends within itself a temporary fair price shop dealer and the latter has locus to challenge an order made under Clause 5 or under Clause 20(1) or 20(2) of the Control Order by filing appeal or revision, as the case may be.”

12. In my view, the above decision applies to the case on hand. In the light of above jurisprudence, the impugned order passed by the 2 respondent without conducting enquiry is not legally sustainable.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in Rc. No. CS2(5)/239533/2019, dated 03.01.2020, passed by the 2 respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back with a direction to the 2 respondent to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner calling for her explanation and after receiving her explanation, conduct an enquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously. Till such exercise is completed, the petitioner shall be permitted to conduct the fair price shop No. 0814031 of Kammavaripalem Village, Mundlamuri Mandal, Prakasam District.

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.