IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 252 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/01/2008 in WP NO: 10224 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Orusu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Uppalapadu, Village Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) The District Collector, Prakasam District (Civil Supplies) Ongole. 2) The Joint Collector, Prakasam District,Ongole. 3) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole , Prakasam District. 4) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki Mandal , Prakasam District. 5) Annabathuni Subbaiah, S/o.Kotaiah, R/o.Uppalapadu,Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. 6) Divyakola Subba Rao, S/o. Venkatewarlu, R/o.Uppalapadu,Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) Admit. At the request of the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, the appeal is finally heard today. The appellant is a fair price shop dealer. The case against the appellant was that he had committed some irregularities. The following were the charges leveled against the appellant: 1) That the dealer has made double entries for 6 rice coupons in the Sales Register duly made fictitious entries for the month of 5/2004; 2) That the dealer has made double entries for 11 K. oil coupons in the sales register duly made fictitious entries for the month of 5/2004; 3) That the dealer has diverted 100 kgs. Of rice and 51 litres of K. Oil to the black; 4) That the dealer is distributing the E.Cs. at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Govt. In pursuance of the afore-stated charges leveled against the appellant, by an order dated 27.10.2005, his dealership had been cancelled by Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal had been filed by the appellant before Joint Collector (FAC), Prakasam District. The Joint Collector, by an order dated 24.2.2006, after hearing the appellant, allowed the appeal whereby his dealership had been restored. The cardholders – respondent Nos.5 and 6, being aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, filed a revision application before the District Collector. The District Collector, by an order dated 06.01.2007, had allowed the revision application whereby the dealership of the appellant had been again cancelled. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector, the appellant had filed Writ Petition No.10224 of 2007. The said petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 17.1.2008 and, therefore, the present appeal has been filed. Looking to the facts of the case, by an order dated 10.3.2008, this Court had called for the record pertaining to the case for the reason that upon perusal of the material papers, the Court prima facie found that an enquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant. Today, the record has been produced by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Upon perusal of the record and upon hearing the learned advocates, it has been found that the enquiry was not only conducted behind the back of the appellant, but was conducted by someone who was not authorized. It has been found that the work with regard to conducting the enquiry had been entrusted to Deputy Tahsildar. The Deputy Tahsildar had recorded the statements of certain persons. The said statements were never supplied to the appellant. A copy of the report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer was also not given to the appellant. For the afore-stated reasons, in our opinion, it cannot be said that a fair enquiry had been conducted by the governmental authorities. Looking to the afore-stated facts and more particularly in view of the fact that the principles of natural justice had been grossly violated by the original authority and even by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities had not considered the above facts, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant’s dealership be continued. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10224 of 2007 is set aside. The orders dated 24.2.2006 and 27.10.2005 passed by the Joint Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer respectively are quashed. We have recorded the fact that some enquiry had been conducted and certain statements had been recorded in the enquiry proceedings. In the circumstances, the learned Government Pleader has fairly submitted that the enquiry proceedings should be re- initiated so that the truth can come out and if the appellant had, in fact, committed irregularities, his dealership may not be continued. The submission made by the learned Government Pleader merits consideration and, therefore, the proceedings are remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole so that the same can be re- initiated in accordance with law. Till date, this Court has directed to maintain status quo and, therefore, the appellant’s dealership has been continued. The dealership of the appellant shall now be continued in view of the fact that all proceedings have been quashed. We are sure that the fresh proceedings shall be re-initiated and completed as soon as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 02, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs