Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 721 (AP)

Meda Sobha Rani v. State Of A. P.

2024-06-28

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2024
ORDER : (Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.) : The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “... to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent cancelling the authorization without conducting enquiry passing the impugned order in Rc No.453/2021-B, dated 06.10.2023 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same order and pass such other order or orders …” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of Shop No.0712028, Kaza Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. From the date of appointment in the year 2018, the petitioner has been continued as Fair Price Shop dealer for the above said shop and distributing essential commodities to the card holders in the village without any remarks. 3. While so, a show cause notice was issued on 31.07.2021 framing two charges that are the petitioner did not distribute the commodities to the card holders, and there are variations in respect of PMGK Rice and RG Dall by which the petitioner indulged in clandestine business and Respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to submit an explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the copy of the show cause notice, failing which the action will be initiated basing on the records available in the office. Then, the petitioner filed an explanation to the show cause notice dated 16.08.2021 to drop charges framed against the petitioner and explained the reasons for the shortage of Rice and Dall where occurred due to distribution among the card holders during bad signals in network and non response of ePos device. Additionally, it was emphasized that her shop did not receive any allocation of Red Gram Dall under the Intergrated Child Development Services (ICDS) program. In the absence of allocation makes it impossible for the alleged discrepancies to exist, thereby indicating a lack of proper verification by the complainant. Even if we were thoroughly examined the details of the allocation and stock deliveries, it would have become evident that Red Gram Dal was not supplied to her shop through ICDS. 4. In the absence of allocation makes it impossible for the alleged discrepancies to exist, thereby indicating a lack of proper verification by the complainant. Even if we were thoroughly examined the details of the allocation and stock deliveries, it would have become evident that Red Gram Dal was not supplied to her shop through ICDS. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.3/the Revuenue Divisional Officer, Guntur wherein it is stated that on 24.07.2021 at about 3.00 PM on receipt of credible information and as per the instructions of the District Administration, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Mangalagiri along with VRO, Kaza Village rushed to Kaza Village of Manglagiri Mandal and inspected the F.P. shop No.0712058 run by Meda Shoba Rani, W/o. Vekata Rao. During the inspection the following variations were noticed in ECs with reference to epos device report and physical stock on ground. S.No. Commodity O.B. Receipt Total Sales Closing Balance Ground Stocks Variations 1. PMGKAY (in bags @ 50 Kgs each) ---- 163 163 4 150 45 Bags (50 kgs) (-)114 2. Redgram Dal (in packets @ 1 kg each) ---- 299 299 209 90 -- Packet (1Kg) (-)90 5. It is further stated that as per the AEPDS online report, it clearly discloses that the ECs were distributed in the month of July, 2021 with the proper working of ePos device. Hence, the explanation offered by the Petitioner is not satisfactory, Respondent No.3 herein viz., the Sub Collector, Tenali had cancelled the authorization vide Rc.No.2453/2021-B, dated 06.10.2023 by observing due procedure of law and also conducted the detail inquiry and dealer statement were also recorded at the time of inquiry, personal hearing opportunity was also provided to the dealer. Immediately as per the provisions and basing on the recommendation of the Tahsildar, Mangalagiri, the VRA concerned was permitted to lift and distribute the ECs to ensure prompt distribution of essential commodities to the targeted cardholders to whom it is intended without any inconvenience from the date of filing of Disciplinary Case and 6-A case against the existing F.P. Shop Dealer. 6. It is submitted that a due procedure of law was followed by issuing a show cause notice by the then RDO, Guntur on 31.07.2021 to the petitioner and she submitted her written explanation. 6. It is submitted that a due procedure of law was followed by issuing a show cause notice by the then RDO, Guntur on 31.07.2021 to the petitioner and she submitted her written explanation. Further the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing on 29.09.2023, and at the time of hearing she deposed that she had been suffered with Corona and not able to distribute the ECs to the Card holders, but done the same with the help of her relatives, that the relatives who distributed the ECs did not have much knowledge in ePos machine. It is deposed that her relatives have distributed the ECs physically but not updated card holders thumb impression in e-Pos machine. 1) As per APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, other than family members are not allowed for distribution of ECs. If she really faces any struggle in distribution of ECs, at that time she could have informed the authorities. 2) As seen from the Aepds online report, it came to know that they were distributed the ECs of PMGKY Rice- Sortex Rice - 167 Kgs, Sugar 200 Kgs, RG Dall - 209 Kgs, 112 packets. If her relatives are not aware in distribution of ECs, the above issued report of ECs may not be generated in online. 3) As per the AEPDS online report, it clearly discloses that the ECs were distributed in the month of July 2021 with the proper working of e-Pos device. Hence the Authorization of the Petitioner was cancelled rightly in accordance with due procedure of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.3 did not choose to conduct detailed enquiry as contemplated under the Clause 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short “the Control Order, 2018”) as well as no reasons were assigned as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted an explanation wherein it is categorically denied that the supply of Red Gram Dall under ICDS project for the subject month and also for the previous month. But, the Respondents neither enquired with the ICDS officer concerned regarding supply of Red Gram Dall nor invited any written instructions from the authority concerned to counter the explanation of the petitioner. But, the Respondents neither enquired with the ICDS officer concerned regarding supply of Red Gram Dall nor invited any written instructions from the authority concerned to counter the explanation of the petitioner. He further emphasized that they simply stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfied. Moreover, Respondent No.3 neither conducted any nor examined the persons concerned to ascertain the genuineness of cause as explained in the explanation by the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the Respondents without assigning any reasons pursuant to the explanation as submitted under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except recording the statement of the petitioner, neither card holders nor officers concerned were examined pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the subject impugned proceedings lacks the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to contradict the same. He further submits that it is a fit case directing the authorities to conduct detailed enquiry afresh as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. The Respondents neither enclosed a copy of the report said to have been contemplated under Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018 nor furnished even at the time of personal hearing to contradict the same. The impugned cancellation proceedings are suffered with non observation of statutory provisions as contemplated under the Control Order, 2018. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 is liable to be set-aside. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies reiterated the contentions narrated in their counter affidavit as extracted above. He further contended that the petitioner available with an statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Respondent No.2 as per Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the EC Act, 1955”). But, without availing the said statutory alternative remedy, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner shall invoke the jurisdiction of appellate authority but cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies further submits that the Respondents framed the charges and informed the same to the petitioner by way of notice and received the explanation and again issued notice under 6(p) of EC Act, 1955 inviting a explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner is also submitted another explanation. 11. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies further submits that the Respondents framed the charges and informed the same to the petitioner by way of notice and received the explanation and again issued notice under 6(p) of EC Act, 1955 inviting a explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner is also submitted another explanation. Both the explanations were duly considered and opined that both are not satisfied for further enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity and personal hearing. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondents are not duly conducted enquiry and not assigned any reasons. He further submits that the impugned order of Respondent No.3 is in detail and explained variations found in inspection and considered the contents raised in the explantion of the petitioner and rejected the same that were not satisfied and also assigned reasons before passing order of cancellation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be entitled to agitate the impugned proceedings were issued without proper enquiry and without assigning any reasons. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material on record. 13. In the present case in hand no enquiry was conducted as per the contention in the explanation of the petitioner which is in violation to Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and also ratio laid down by this Court in C. Durga Srinivas and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2003 (3) ALT 68 observed as extracted hereunder: 26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. (i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning. 32. (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorisation and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning. 32. After extracting the explanation, a finding was recorded based on the enquiry of the Tahsildar dated 19.12.2014. No independent enquiry was conducted and the finding was not based on any such enquiry. Ultimately, it was held as follows: The charges framed against the dealer, the explanation filed by the dealer perused. The explanation of the dealer is not convincing and believable. The contents of the explanation are far away from truth. During the course of enquiry of the Tahsildar, on 19-12-2014, the 26 card holders Shop No.47 of Nandigama (V) have given their statements that they are not received E.C.s for the month of August, 2014, but the F.P.Shop dealer has forged the thumb impression of card holders and diverted the PDS Rice into block market. A perusal of report of the Tahsildar, Sattenapalli is also revealed that the dealer has misused the total quantity of Rice Qtls 3.32 kgs. for the month of December, 2014. Thus the charges framed against the dealer held proved. 35. The above cases indicate that due procedure was not followed by the officers while cancelling the authorisation for the alleged violations/irregularities committed by the petitioners. In view of the violation of the procedure by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officers, the orders passed in the above Writ Petitions are to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. 36. Thus, all these Writ Petitions are allowed and remanded to the appointing authority for not following the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry and passing orders of cancellation of authorisation. 14. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that though Respondent No.2, had issued the impugned order in cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop without considering the explanation of the petitioner, Respondent No.2 did not record any reasons for coming to such conclusion, except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing for not to cancel the authorisation of the petitioner. Moreover, Respondent No.2 did not conduct proper enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. Moreover, Respondent No.2 did not conduct proper enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. Being a quasi-judicial authority the Respondent No.2 ought to have recorded his findings and ought to have passed a reasoned order after considering the contentions raised in the explanation and after conducting detailed enquiry and evidence, it appears that the impugned order of cancellation of authorization was passed without there being any enquiry and not provided any opportunity of participation to the petitioner in the alleged enquiry. 15. It appears that the impugned order in cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop dealership authorization is based on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is contrary to Sub-Clause(5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 which has been held to be mandatory by this Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015 (4) ALT 572 observed as extracted hereunder: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental Ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra. 10. An ‘enquiry’ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. The licencing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. The licencing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry. 11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 16. As conteded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of cancellation of authorization by the Respondent No.2 without considering the explanation of the petitioner is also observed from the present impugned proceedings. It is further observed that no reasons were assignined and no enquiry was conducted in relation to the objections and contentions raised in the explanation, except observing that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convinced which is against the ratio laid down by this Court held in M. Kalyani vs. District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and others, 2006 (5) ALD 796 (DB) observed as extracted hereunder: “11. In our opinion, the order passed by Respondent No.3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. It is not in dispute that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to the appellant. In K. Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and Ors. 1996 (1) ALD 473 : 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP), it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case effectively. It was further held that the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfill the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show-cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. In that case the petitioner therein had been given opportunity of personal hearing but even then the Court held that the opportunity was not real inasmuch as the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer. In S. Malla Reddy v. M. Vijayalakshmi and Ors., 2005 (3) ALT 100 : 2005 (5) ALD (NOC) 174, this Court held that the authorization of fair price shop could not have been cancelled on the basis of vague notice.” 12. We are further of the view that the failure of respondent No.3 to consider the explanation of the appellant in a correct perspective and failure to assign reason for holding that the allegations levelled against her have been proved, has the effect of vitiating the order of cancellation.” 17. It is further observed that the impugned order of Respondent No.2 did not assigning any reasons, as required and it is contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in Gondu Chinnammadu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, W.P.No.5800 of 2020, dated 06.04.2021, wherein it is observed as under: 16. Thus, the finding recorded by the respondents that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not at all satisfactory, but no reason was assigned for not accepting the explanation except concluding that it was not at all satisfactory. 17. Similarly, in K.Nirmala’s case (referred (2) above) the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:- “the order does not contain any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the stay application and secondly, the allegations on which the petitioner’s authorization was suspended are too trivial. This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. An order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till conclusion of the enquiry and passing of final orders by respondent in W.P.No.34264 to 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.” 18. Same is reiterated in another judgment in Thyrumala Setty’s case (referred (3) above) wherein it is held as follows:- “Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorization has to be exercised. Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering of the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorization has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where, no suspension is warranted as, it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where, no suspension is warranted as, it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints, from any cardholders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No.2 in suspending the petitioner’s authorization cannot be sustained. 19. Even otherwise in one of the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19266 of 2019, dated 02.12.2019 an identical question was considered by this Court and held in Para 7 of the judgment as follows:- “7. 2nd respondent is a quasi judicial authority and required to adjudicate the disputes under Control Order, 2018. 2nd respondent being a quasi judicial authority has to pass a reasoned order, strictly adhering to the requirements under Control Order, 2018. Time and again the Courts held that though the administrative authorities exercising quasi judicial powers, are bound to record its reasons. In exercise of power of judicial review, the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, works contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers [ (2010) 4 SCC 785 ] had an occasion to deal with an unreasoned order and made certain observations. In exercise of power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately 10 and in accordance with law. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately 10 and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. The Apex Court also referred various judgments in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co., of India Ltd. v. Union of India and another [ AIR 1976 SC 1785 ], Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [ (1979) 2 SCC 368 ] and other judgments in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and others [ (1987) 2 SCC 222 ], Chabungbambohal Singh v. Union of India [1995 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 83] and Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India [ (1998) 2 SCC 242 ], concluded that the absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority or a Court or administrative authority is mandatory. In the absence of reasons, the Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India can set aside the order impugned in the writ petition.” 18. It is settled proposition of law that before passing any final order which effects the interest of any party, the authorities shall record reasons by conducting proper enquiry. 19. Admittedly, in the present case proper enquiry was not conducted and no reasons were recorded / assigned in the impugned order which is in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the same, it is clear that Respondent No.2 did not follow the proper procedure. 19. Admittedly, in the present case proper enquiry was not conducted and no reasons were recorded / assigned in the impugned order which is in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the same, it is clear that Respondent No.2 did not follow the proper procedure. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order of cancellation of authorisation is unsustainable under law and liable to be set-aside and also contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in Modi Srinivasarao vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and others, W.P.No.500 of 2020, dated 08.01.2020, observed as extracted hereunder: 8. Admittedly, show cause notice was issued to petitioner calling for explanation for two charges framed against him, by exercising power under Section 6-B of E.C Act. Therefore, initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act, on the basis of report of Tahsildar, Santhabommali is not in dispute. 9. When Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 specified that a separate report is required to be filed by inspecting officer for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner, in the absence of any such separate report, as contemplated under Section 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, passing order based on report under Section 6-A of E.C Act is impermissible under law, since it is deviation from Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. In the written instructions placed on record by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, he submitted that Tahsildar, Santhabommali has also submitted another report under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, before Joint Collector, Srikakulam District, requesting to initiate necessary disciplinary action against Fair Price Shop dealer for the irregularities committed by him in distribution of stock to card holders. But this fact was not reflected in the order impugned in the writ petition on the contrary, it indicates that based on report referred in the subject of order, the impugned order is passed. Copy of report is also not placed on record by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to support his contention that a separate report is submitted as required under sub clause (i) of Clause 20 of Control Order, 2018. The order impugned in the writ petition refers only one report submitted by Tahsildar, Santhabommali. Respondents cannot substitute with another report in the place of earlier report, by submitting written instructions. The order impugned in the writ petition refers only one report submitted by Tahsildar, Santhabommali. Respondents cannot substitute with another report in the place of earlier report, by submitting written instructions. The alleged second report under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is not referred in the order impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that proceedings were initiated, based on another report submitted under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, as copy of it is not placed on record, except written instructions. Hence, I find that passing order, based on the report filed by Tahsildar, Santhabommali for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act as well as initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, without filing a separate report as required under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018 is a serious illegality and contrary to Control Order, 2018. 10. As per Clause ‘q’ of Circular Memo issued by Commissioner, Civil Supplies in No.21/100/2015-AD.1 PP&CCS dated 28.09.2015, proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are liable for confiscation or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorization to be issued, based on report. In view of memo and requirement under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order passed by second respondent cannot be sustained, consequently the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20 (i) of Control Order, 2018. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons explained, the impugned order of cancellation dated 06.10.2023 is contrary to the Clause 8(4) and 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018 and also ratio laid dwon by this Court in various judgments referred supra. Hence the impugned order of cancellation is liable to be set-aside. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed-in-part with the following directions: i. The action of the Sub Collector & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tenali in cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry is declared as illegal and arbitrary. ii. Hence the impugned order of cancellation is liable to be set-aside. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed-in-part with the following directions: i. The action of the Sub Collector & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tenali in cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry is declared as illegal and arbitrary. ii. Impugned order passed by the Sub Collector & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tenali vide Rc.No.453/2021-B, dated 06.10.2023 is hereby set-aside; remanding the case to Respondent No.3 for conducting fresh enquiry in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to record reasons thereof. iii. The Respondents are further directed to restore the authorisation of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of Shop No.0712028, Kaza Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District Adigoppula Village, till finalization of proceedings, if an enquiry conducted afresh. iv. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.