Fair Price Shop Dealership Can't Be Cancelled Without Enquiry, Even If Dealer Is Temporary: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court revoked the termination of dealership of a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer based on malpractice complaints and after an MLA's recommendation, noting that enquiry and procedure under State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 was not followed. 

[2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111]

Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the termination of its dealership and the entrustment of the shop to another permanent dealer without an enquiry or opportunity of hearing. 

The Court held:

"For cancellation of authorization of a permanent dealer or even a temporary dealer, an enquiry has to be conducted as contemplated under law.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, and the petitioner shall continue to operate the subject Fair Price Shop in accordance with the orders of this Court dated 10.09.2024. However, it is made clear that the respondent authorities are not precluded from taking appropriate action, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law and the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further made clear that any such action shall be taken independently, without being influenced by any observations made in this order." 

According to the petitioner, it had been appointed as a temporary dealer following the death of the permanent dealer. Subsequently, after a change in the political scenario, the local MLA wrote to the authorities alleging complaints from ration cardholders regarding improper distribution of ration and requested that the dealership be terminated and tagged to a nearby Fair Price Shop.

Acting on the recommendation, the authorities terminated the petitioner's dealership and entrusted the shop to another permanent dealer without conducting an enquiry as required under the Control Order, 2018. 

The petitioner contended that temporary dealers are also entitled to continue until removed in accordance with law and cannot be displaced merely because their appointment is temporary. 

The State submitted that while an MLA could recommend action based on complaints received from beneficiaries, if the Court were inclined to interfere, liberty may be granted to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 

Finding a "flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice," the Court set aside the impugned order while leaving it open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the Control Order, 2018, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 

Case Title: Sri Durga Mahila Podupu Sangam Self Help Group v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19099 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for the Respondents: K. Joji Amrutha Raju

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 111