The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the termination of a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer, holding that the dealer was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainants and was not furnished with the material relied upon.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati passed the order in a writ petition filed by a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer challenging the order terminating his dealership. The impugned order was passed after the authorities conducted a fresh enquiry pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court.

The Court held:

"It is a settled principle of law that when an adverse order is sought to be passed based on statements of third parties, the affected party must be afforded an opportunity to test the veracity of such statements by way of cross-examination. Denial of such an opportunity amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.

Further, this Court also finds that the impugned order does not reflect proper consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The order appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner, without recording independent findings on the issues raised by the petitioner and without demonstrating due application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the principle of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem"

According to the petitioner, certain cardholders complained that he was residing about 6.5 kilometres away from the Fair Price Shop, was not maintaining the prescribed shop timings, and was not providing doorstep delivery of essential commodities to elderly and physically disabled beneficiaries.

Acting on these complaints, the authorities terminated his dealership. The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court, which set it aside and directed the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry after considering his explanation and the statements furnished by him.

Pursuant to those directions, the authorities issued a fresh show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations. However, after conducting another enquiry, the authorities again terminated his dealership, leading to the present writ petition.

It was the case of the petitioner that despite the High Court's earlier directions, the fresh enquiry was merely mechanical. He alleged that the authorities denied him an opportunity to cross-examine the complainants, withheld the statements relied upon, and passed the termination order mechanically without considering his defence.

The State maintained that the petitioner had been given due opportunity by way of a show-cause notice and that his explanation was considered. It submitted that the enquiry revealed that he resided away from the Fair Price Shop, failed to maintain shop timings and did not provide doorstep delivery to eligible beneficiaries. It also contended that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the District Collector.

The Court reiterated that a valid enquiry requires examination of complainants in the presence of the dealer, an opportunity to cross-examine them, and supply of all reports proposed to be relied upon.

The Court found that the enquiry did not satisfy the requirements of a fair hearing. It observed that the petitioner was neither furnished with the complainants' statements in a meaningful manner nor given an opportunity to cross-examine them. Rejecting the State's objection on the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court held that a writ petition is maintainable where the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice.

It accordingly set aside the termination order and remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for a fresh enquiry, strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the authority to furnish all relied-upon material to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of hearing, including the right to cross-examine the complainants if sought.

Case Title: M. Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6133 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: N. Ranga Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Vineeth Appasani, Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

Click Here To Read/Download Order