IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11851 of 2009 Between: D.Sulochanamma W/o.M.Abbaiah Naidu Buravalli(V) Gara(M) Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Srikakulam, Srikakulam, District 2 The Joint Collector(Civil Supplies) Srikakulam,(M) Srikakulam District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Order dated 09-06-2009, passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner’s authorization, in respect of Fair Price Shop of Buravalli Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, was cancelled. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. The abovementioned Fair Price Shop was inspected by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gara, and Circle Inspector (Vigilance) and Officials of the Enforcement Department, Srikakulam, on 08-06-2009. They found that the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the said shop expired on 31-03- 2009 and that she did not apply for its renewal. On a report sent by the Tahsildar, Gara, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization and forfeiting her security deposit, on the ground that she failed to apply for renewal even within the grace period of one month, as envisaged in sub-clause 14 (iii) of Clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’). At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not preceded by any notice to the petitioner and hence, the same is vitiated by non-observance of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the petitioner informed the inspecting Officials that she obtained demand draft for Rs.3,000/- and challan for Rs.250/- and applied for renewal of her authorization in respect of the abovementioned shop on 08-06-2009, but the said fact was, evidently, not informed by the inspecting Officials to respondent No.1. It is doubtless that every Fair Price Shop dealer will have to apply for renewal of his/her authorization one month before expiry of its validity and if he/she fails to so, he/she shall apply at least within the grace period of one month after expiry of such authorization. However, proviso to sub-clause 14 (iii) of Clause 5 of the Control Order empowers the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, in special circumstances, to relax the said requirement and authorize the appointing authority to issue fresh authorization, duly forfeiting the entire or part of security deposit in favour of the Government. In the considered opinion of this Court, respondent No.1 ought to have given a notice to the petitioner and ascertained whether any special circumstances existed for her in not applying for renewal of her authorization within the stipulated time. As the cancellation of authorization results in adverse civil consequences, respondent No.1 ought to have followed this procedure, which conforms not only to the principles of natural justice but also to fairness and reasonableness. Failure of respondent No.1, in issuing such notice, resulted in denial of justice to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to approach the Commissioner of Civil Supplies with a representation, for relaxing the provision as envisaged in proviso to sub-clause 14 (iii) of Clause 5 of the Control Order, within a period of four weeks from today. On such representation being made, the Commissioner shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt and communicate the same to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that any alternative arrangements made in pursuance of the impugned order shall be continued till disposal of the petitioner’s representation by the Commissioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.15259 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 25th June, 2009 LUR