IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9873 of 2008 Between: Y. Appalaswamy C. Rmapuram Village, Siddigam Village, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Collector-Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 2 The Joint Collector, Srikakulam District. 3 District Collector, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.MANIK PRABHU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed to set aside order dated 10-02-2008 passed by respondent No.3, whereby he confirmed the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 1. Heard Sri K.Manik Prabhu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop dealer of Siddigam Village, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District was cancelled by respondent No.1 by order dated 29-06-2003. On appeal, the said order was confirmed by respondent No.2 vide his order dated 03-09- 2005. Both the said orders were questioned in a revision petition filed before respondent No.3. The said revision petition was dismissed by respondent No.3 by order dated 15-05-2006. Assailing the said orders, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15795 of 2006 in this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 12-10-2007 and it is relevant to reproduce the material portion of the order passed in the said Writ Petition: ‘In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, and also having gone through the impugned order, the revisional authority while disposing of the revision is expected to go through the grounds and record the reasons before disposing of the revision. This Court satisfied that the 3rd respondent had not recorded any reasons nor considered the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is also made clear that the revisional authority, the 3rd respondent, also is at liberty to consider the question whether the authorization as on today is subsisting or not and whether any further order to be passed in this revision, in the absence of any renewal having been obtained by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the revision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then the interim suspension granted by this Court to be operative. No order as to costs.’ Purporting to comply with the direction of this Court, respondent No.3 passed a fresh order on 15-05-2006, whereby he reiterated the earlier order and dismissed the revision. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the said order: ‘I have carefully gone through the arguments put forth by the advocate for the Revision Petitioner and material on record. The charges against the revision Petitioner are that (1) he failed to supply ECs to the consumers of Pimpidia Village, (2) Not selling ECs properly and irregularities in distribution of ECs every month. (3) Not adhering to scheduled timings in maintaining the FP shop. A show cause notice issued by the Appointing Authority/Revision Divisional Officer, Tekkali was served on the individual on 17-06-2002 that he failed to submit explanation and also failed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali until order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali were passed on 29-06- 2003. There was ample time between 17-06-2002 to 29-06-2003 for defending the Revision Petition case, but he failed to do so. The Revision Petitioner in his grounds of Revision has stated that charges against him pertains to allegations of one year back. The advocate has argued that the Revision Petitioner fallen sick during the period. The Revision Petitioner did not produce substantive evidence, rebutting the charges. I have perused the connected records and record the arguments of the advocate for the Revision Petitioner. The advocate for the Revision Petitioner has stated that the Revision Petitioner wasn’t well and as such, could not give his explanation in time. He also stating that the FP shop dealer had blemishless record and requested to restore the authorization. It is observed the Revision Petitioner was giving enough opportunity to putforth his case in the appropriate forums. Therefore, find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Joint Collector. Accordingly, the following orders are hereby made.’ A careful consideration of the order passed by respondent No.3 reveals that he failed to carry out the specific directions given by this Court in its order dated 12- 10-2007 passed in W.P.No.15795 of 2006. Regrettably, respondent No.3 committed the same errors, which were pointed out by this Court in the said Writ Petition and directing him to record reasons with reference to the grounds raised by the petitioner before him. He was also directed to decide whether passing of an order in the revision is necessary at all in view of non-renewal of the petitioner’s authorization. Respondent No.3 had neither given specific reasons on the grounds raised by the petitioner nor delved into the issue of necessity or otherwise of passing of order on merits in the revision petition. Respondent No.3 dismissed the revision petition on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the show cause notice given by the Revenue Divisional Officer. I am, therefore, of the view that the order passed by respondent No.3, impugned in this Writ Petition, is not in conformity with the directions given by this Court in the above-mentioned Writ Petition. Therefore, I have no option other than setting aside the same and remanding the matter to respondent No.3 for passing a fresh order in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.15795 of 2006, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the pendency of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, the respondents are not renewing his fair price shop authorization. I am of the view that interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application for renewal and respondent No.1 is directed to consider the same, without reference to the pendency of proceedings, subject to the condition that grant of any renewal would be subject to the result of the proceedings pending before respondent No.3. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 30-04-2008 LUR