THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.33265 of 2010 DT.29.12.2010 Between: D.Jaya Prakash … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. K.Hema Latha Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash proceedings in Roc.No.B/1809/2010, dated 21.12.2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. I have heard Smt.K.Hema Latha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has merely extracted the charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner thererto, and with one cryptic observation that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing, cancelled his authorization. In an identical case, while disposing of W.P.No.30650 of 2010 on 07.12.2010, this Court held as under: “In my opinion, respondent No.1 has not made a proper approach in passing the order cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. He has neither referred to the charges nor the contents of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. By a cryptic observation, respondent No.1 has stated that the petitioner’s explanation is not convincing and that the charges framed against him are proved. Indubitably the order cancelling the privilege of distribution of essential commodities through a licence visits the holder of the licence with adverse consequences. Before subjecting the licensee to such an adverse order, it is obligatory on the part of the competent authority to apply his mind to the charges framed against and the explanation offered by the licensee. Failure to follow this fair procedure renders the very purpose of framing the charges and calling for explanation otiose. The principles of natural justice, it is trite are embedded in the administrative law field. Whenever an action, which is likely to cause adverse civil consequences is sought to be taken, the person, who is likely to be affected by such action, is entitled to reasonable opportunity of defending himself (see State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi and others[1], Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[2], Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India[3] and Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT[4]). By failing to consider the explanation of the petitioner with reference to the charges framed against him, respondent No.1 has indulged in serious violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly quashed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.1 from considering the petitioner’s explanation and passing a speaking order afresh with reference to the charges framed against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.” The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has not disputed that the issue raised in this writ petition is identical to that involved in W.P.No.30650 of 2010. Following the order passed in the said writ petition, this writ petition is allowed with the direction that the reasons contained in the said order and noted above shall form part of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42205 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 29.12.2010 VGB [1] 1967 SC 1269 [2] 1978 SC 597 [3] 1981 SC 818 [4] (2007) 2 SCC 181