IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.24664 of 2009 Between: Shaik Younus ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Nizamabad district, Nizamabad and three others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard the learned counsel. 2. The matter is coming up for admission. 3. This court on 16-11-2009 granted interim suspension as prayed for. 4. The order under challenge reads as hereunder: “ORDER: In the references cited, the Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement) Madnoor has reported that filed under 6A case of E.C. Act 1955 of Shaik Younas, Fair Price Shop dealer Kurla village, Madnoor Mandal. In the reference 2nd cited, the Joint Collector, Nizamabad has issued orders that the Fair Price shop dealer has clearly contravened Clause 7(i), 17 (a) (b) 22 (iii) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) & condition 2 (1) (a) (2) of annexure under Clause 19 of APSPDS system (control) 2008 and condition 4 (i) (ii) 12 & 14 of the authorization. Therefore, passed orders for confiscation of 100% of the value of the variation in seized stock to Government account. Therefore, the authorization of Sri Shaik Younus S/o.Chotu, Fair Price shop dealer Kurla village is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. The Tahsildar, Madnoor is requested to make alternate arrangements till a new dealer is appointed and comply the orders of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad immediate for confiscation of 100% of the value seized stock to Government Account. Sd/- Revenue Divisional Officer Bodhan.” 5. The writ petition is filed for seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings No.E1/1187/2009 dated 08-11-2009 issued by the second respondent by canceling the authorization of the petitioner without conducting an independent enquiry is being illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice and pass such other suitable orders. 6. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 7. In the light of the nature of the reasons, which had been recorded in the order under challenge by the second respondent and also in the light of the nature of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this court is of the considered opinion that the order under challenge cannot be sustained. The impugned order is accordingly hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent – the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad district with a direction to give opportunity to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in this regard, at the earliest point of time. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J January 18, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.24664 of 2009 January 18, 2010