IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SISTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 17120 of 2008 Between: Sri P. Babu S/o Balappa Lankala, Narva Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar District. Mahabubnagar. 2 The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District Mahabubnagar. 3 The Tahsildar, narva Mandal, Narva Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in passing the proceedings vide case No. A/2307/2007 dated 03-07-2007, without issuing the show cause notice and without hearing the petitioner and thereby dismissed the Appeal and Revision by the Respondent No.2 and 1, dt 22-01-2008 and 31-05-2008 respectively are illegal, arbitrary, in vioaltion of the Principles of natural Justice, in Violation of Clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh state Public Distribution System Control order -2001 and in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently seta side the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.D.PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 17120 of 2008 The petitioner herein is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Lankala village, Narva Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. His authorization was suspended by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 03-07-2007 on the allegation that he had indulged in illegal transportation of 3 litres of kerosene and consequently a criminal case was registered against him in P.S. Makthal vide Crime No.71 of 2007 dated 18-06- 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Mahbubnagar District. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 22-01-2008 and the further revision preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent- District Collector also ended in dismissal by order dated 19-05-2008. Hence, the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of suspension dated 03-07-2007 passed by the 3rd respondent without prior notice and without conducting any enquiry into the alleged illegal transportation of kerosene is arbitrary and illegal apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in B.VENKATESWARA RAO V. THE REVENUE DIVISONAL OFFICER, KHAMMA DISTIRCT[1] and ALIVELAMMA V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM[2]. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner before suspending his authorization has not been disputed. However, it is contended that since admittedly, the petitioner is involved in a criminal case, his authorization is liable for suspension as per clause 5 of Annexe to the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the Order’). It is true that Crime No.71 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Makthal Police Station is registered against the petitioner and the investigation is still pending. However, the question is whether on that ground the petitioner’s authorization can be suspended without giving an opportunity to him to represent his case. It is pleaded by the petitioner that another dealer by name Balaraj, whose authorization was also suspended by order dated 03-07-2007 on the very same ground of his involvement in Crime No.71 of 2007, was reinstated by virtue of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22-01-2008. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in not extending similar beneﬁt to the petitioner is discriminatory apart from being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The material placed before this Court shows that the appeal preferred by the said Balaraj was allowed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that he was not aﬀorded an opportunity to represent his case before suspending his authorization. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the 3rd respondent with a direction to ﬁnalise the matter within four weeks and till such time, the order of suspension was stayed. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Tahsildar, the fact that the authorization of the said dealer by name Balaraj was restored has not been disputed. It is also not in dispute that the said Balaraj is also one of the accused in Crime No.71 of 2007 which is still pending. However, similar contention raised by the petitioner that the suspension of his authorization without prior notice was in violation of the principles of natural justice was not accepted either by the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority. Moreover, the 2 nd respondent-Appellate Authority, while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal relied upon a report of the Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement) and also certain alleged corrections made in the entries in the Distribution Register. In such an event, the principles of natural justice requires an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case against the said allegations. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner till today calling for explanation with regard to the said allegations. As a matter of fact, the order dated 08-07-2007 passed by the 3rd respondent shows that the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization was solely on the ground that that a criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.71 of 2007. Identical order was passed against the other dealer Balaraj on the same day suspending his authorization on the very same ground of registration of Crime No.71 of 2007 against him. Having allowed the appeal of Balaraj on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to represent his case, the 2nd respondent adopted a diﬀerent treatment to the petitioner herein in rejecting the speciﬁc contention that the order of suspension was in violation of principles of natural justice for want of opportunity. The 1st respondent-Revisional Authority conﬁrmed the order of the 2nd respondent by a cryptic order without assigning any reasons. In the circumstances, the orders of respondents 1 and 2 as well as the order of the 3rd respondent dated 03- 07-2007 being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice are hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 16-09-2008 KLP [1] 1997(1) AN.W.R.83 [2] 2004(6) ALT 669.