Telangana High Court
Billa Jagadamba vs The State Of Telangana, on 15 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 21860 OF 2017
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent No.2
dated 20.06.2017 directing the respondent No.3 to remove the
authorization of the petitioner's fair price shop dealership and
upon which the respondent No.3 has issued orders dated
28.06.2017 straightaway removing the authorization of the
petitioner's fair price shop No.41, Dubbak Village and Mandal of
Siddipet District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner
and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to
direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to continue the supply of the
commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop and to pass such
other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price
shop dealer in the year 1984 and has been running the said fair
price shop without any complaint from any cardholder. It is
stated that the petitioner is the only bread earner of the family.
It is stated that the respondent No.5, who is a working as a
reporter in the petitioner's village and has a habit of extracting
money from fair price shop dealers and other businessmen by
blackmailing them, has developed a personal grudge against the
petitioner and her husband and has started harassing her and
under the influence and pressure of respondent No.5, the
respondent No.3 on 24.12.2016, issued a show cause notice
leveling three charges against her i.e., (i) the petitioner has not
been distributing the commodities to the cardholders properly;
and (ii) she has not been maintaining the stock register and
distribution register properly; and (iii) thus, violated the State
Public Distribution Control Order of 2008 requiring the
petitioner to submit her explanation within seven days from the
date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner claims to have
submitted a detailed explanation on 02.01.2017 stating that the
charges levelled against her are false and fabricated and
requested to drop the proceedings. However, the petitioner was
placed under suspension vide proceedings No.B/7013/2016,
dated 09.01.2017. It is stated that thereafter, the respondent
No.3 conducted an inquiry and could not find any illegalities or
irregularities committed by the petitioner and hence revoked the
suspension order and vide Proceedings No.B/7013/2016, dated
28.02.2017 imposed a penalty of Rs.1,000/-. It is submitted
that the petitioner paid the penalty and said order has thus
become final. But subsequent thereto, on 20.06.2017, under the
pressure and influence of respondent No.5, respondent No.2 has
addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 stating that the
education certificate submitted by the petitioner was a
fabricated one and that the petitioner has misguided the
appointing authority to get the fair price shop dealership in the
year 1984. The respondent No.2 therefore instructed the
respondent No.3 to take necessary action for removal of her
dealership. It is stated that the removal of her dealership
appears to have been issued upon a case initiated before the
A.P.Human Rights Commission Case No.903 of 2017. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent No.3 has not looked into the record pertaining to the
awarding of authorization in her favour and that already a
similar complaint was filed against her, which got concluded
and therefore, the respondents could not have re-opened the
case and could not have passed the order of cancellation of
authorization without issuing any notice to the petitioner.
Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is in clear violation of
principles of natural justice.
3. When the matter came up for admission, on
07.07.2017, this Court had granted interim suspension of the
impugned order in W.P.M.P.No.26901 of 2017, which is re-
numbered as I.A.No.1 of 2017 and thus the petitioner has been
continued as authorized dealer of the subject fair price shop till
date.
4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit along with the Stay
Vacate Petition i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the
year 1984 when there was no education qualification prescribed
for the appointment of a fair price shop dealer and therefore,
there was no occasion for the petitioner to submit any certificate
leave-alone, the 10th class certificate as alleged by the
respondents. It is stated that for the very same issue, action was
initiated in the year 2008 and an inquiry was conducted and it
was observed that the petitioner was not submitted any 'TC' and
thereafter the matter was closed. It is submitted that the
petitioner was not asked to submit any documents in the year
1984 and he further submitted that before passing of the
cancellation order, which is the impugned order in this writ
petition, notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner and
this impugned order has been passed without following the
principles of natural justice and prayed for allowing of the writ
petition.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent
No.3, it is stated that there were several complaints from the
villagers that the petitioner was not supplying the commodities
to their satisfaction and that the said shop was being run by
the husband and son of the petitioner and that a show cause
notice to that effect was issued to the petitioner and the
petitioner has also submitted her explanation on 02.01.2017
and not being satisfied with the explanation submitted, the
petitioner was placed under suspension for a period of one
month i.e., from 09.01.2017. It is stated that the suspension
order was revoked with the imposition of a penalty on
28.02.2017. Thereafter, during the inquiry being conducted by
the District Collector on 18.02.2017 and 25.03.2017, both
parties attended for hearing and that the petitioner submitted
Xerox copies of her school certificates and when the original
certificates were asked to be produced, the Head Master of the
Zilla Parishad High School (Girls) appeared along with the
record and submitted that the 'TC' submitted by the petitioner
was not issued in the year 1982 but was issued in the year
2008 and that the educational certificate produced was
fabricated. In view thereof, the Tahsildar submitted a complaint
against the petitioner on 31.01.2009 and thereafter, after
following due process, the writ petitioner has been removed
from the fair price shop dealership. It is submitted that RDO
has acted under the delegated powers and issued the impugned
removal orders.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also filed a
reply affidavit reiterating the stand taken by her in the writ
affidavit.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was
appointed in the year 1984 and admittedly, she has not
submitted any certificates in support of her educational
qualifications. Vide G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 05.02.1996, the
Minimum General Educational Qualification prescribed for
appointment of an authorized dealer was 7th class pass or
higher and where no candidate is available with the said
minimum general educational qualifications, a candidate
possessing a lesser educational qualification if applied, may be
considered for appointment. Vide G.O.Ms.No.20, dated
06.09.2018, the minimum general educational qualification has
been prescribed as 10th class pass or higher qualification and
where no candidate is available with minimum educational
qualification, a person with 7th class pass may also be
considered under special circumstances to be notified by the
competent authority. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner
that there was no occasion for her to submit the 'TC' of 10th
class at the time of her appointment is reasonable and
acceptable. The requirement under which the petitioner has
submitted a Xerox copy of the 'TC' is also not explained by the
respondent authorities. Further, it also appears that for the very
same reason, the respondents have initiated action in the year
2016 by issuing a show cause notice and the petitioner has
submitted her explanation and the said proceedings have ended
by imposition of a penalty of Rs.1,000/- and thereafter, for the
very same reason, proceedings were initiated by issuance of a
letter dated 20.06.2017 and that too without issuance of any
show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned orders are clearly
in violation of the principles of natural justice and vide interim
order dated 07.07.2017, this Court had granted interim
suspension of the impugned order and thereby the petitioner
has continued as a fair price shop dealer.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the judgment of this Court in the case of G.Durga Srinivasa
Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 1, in support of
his contentions that the guiding principles for disciplinary
action against the authorized dealers as culled out in Para-26 of
the said order are not followed in this case. It is clear that the
said procedure has not been followed by the respondents in this
case.
10. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to set aside
the impugned order dated 28.06.2017.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 15.09.2025
bak
1 2015 (6) ALD 359
