IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 19441 of 2009 Between: Smt.B..Kanthamma, W/o Gangadhar, 27 years, Occ: Fair Price Shop Dealer, Dharmaram Village, Yedpallai Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 2 The Tahsildar, Yedpalli Mandal, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19441 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings No.E1/1678/2009 dated 25.08.2009 cancelling the authorization granted in favour of the petitioner for running the fair price shop No.10, Dharmaram village, Yedpalli Mandal, Nizamabad District. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of FPS No.10, Dharmaram village, Yedpalli Mandal, Nizamabad District in the year 1998 and since the date of granting authorization she was distributing essential commodities to all the cardholders in the village, without any complaint. However, it appears the 2nd respondent herein addressed a letter dated 20.07.2009 to the 1st respondent informing that the petitioner got married and left the village and the fair price shop in question is being run by her relatives and, therefore, the authorization of the petitioner has to be cancelled. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 13.08.2009 directing her to submit explanation. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation stating that she is residing in the village even after her marriage and running the fair price shop without any complaint. Subsequently, the 1st respondent, without causing any enquiry and without verifying the truth or otherwise of the contents of the explanation, passed the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2009 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order without giving any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry with regard to the residence of the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to extract the impugned order dated 25.08.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, which reads as under: “In the reference 1st cited the Tahsilder, Yedpalli has reported that the fair price shop dealer of Dharmaram village, Smt.B.Kanthamma, got married and the shop is being run by her relatives and requested for cancellation of authorization and to notify the vacancy. In the reference 2nd cited a show cause notice has been issued and served calling the explanation as to why the authorization should not be cancelled as she got married and shop is run by her relatives. She has submitted her explanation vide reference 3rd cited which is examined with reference to records and found not satisfactory. Therefore, the authorization of Smt.B.Kanthamma, fair price shop dealer of Dharmaram is hereby cancelled with immediate effect”. From a perusal of the aforesaid impugned order, it is clear that except issuing a show cause notice calling for explanation of the petitioner, no further opportunity has been given to the petitioner to explain as to whether she is residing at the place where the authorized fair price shop is situated or not. In fact, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies also had fairly conceded that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity before passing the impugned order. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 25.08.2009 passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 25.08.2009 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. However, this order does not preclude the 1st respondent from passing a fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is needless to observe that the petitioner can submit an explanation to the 1st respondent bringing to his notice all the aforesaid facts, including her place of residence. No order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 05-10-2009 Gsn.