IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.14508 of 2008 Between: Gollapalli Rama Lingeswara Swamy, S/o. Late Sri Kannaiah, Hindu, R/o. Durgada, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, East Godavari District, At Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Gollaprolu, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No. Ref. G/3000/07, Dated 19-05- 2008 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to issue authorization to the Petitioner forthwith to enable him to distribute essential commodities to the card holders of F.p. Shop No. 31 A of Durgada Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.14508 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notification for appointment of a fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.31-A of Durgada Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District, he applied for the said dealership and the application of the petitioner was considered and he was appointed as fair price shop dealer of the said shop vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Ref.G/3000/2007, dated 26-04-2008. After issuance of the appointment order, the 2nd respondent informed him that a complaint is said to have been received on 05-05-2008 from one Ramisetty Easwarudu and five others of Durgada village objecting for his appointment, as fair price shop dealer, as the petitioner is working as a Teacher in Viswabharathi Primary School at Durgada village. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent without conducting any enquiry on the alleged complaint said to have been filed against the petitioner, passed the impugned order, cancelling his appointment on the ground that the 1st respondent instructed him to cancel his appointment and issue fresh notification for appointment. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the allegations said to have been made against the petitioner were said to have been enquired into behind the back of the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to whether the petitioner is working as a Teacher in Viswabharathi Primary School at Durgada as on the date of his appointment and whether there was any disqualification. Merely because the petitioner is working as a Teacher prior to his appointment, it cannot be said that he is not entitled for appointment as a fair price shop dealer. It is stated that though he used to work as a Teacher prior to the appointment as a fair price shop dealer, he has resigned from service and he is not working as a Teacher and, therefore, there cannot be any disqualification or impediment for his appointment as a fair price shop dealer. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, is illegal and unsustainable and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the 2nd respondent to consider afresh and pass appropriate orders, after issuing show cause notice and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to consider afresh and pass appropriate orders, after issuing show cause notice and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Till then, the 2nd respondent is directed not to issue any fresh notification calling for the applications for appointment of a fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.31 A of Durgada Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 08-07-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}