HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7402 of 2009 Date of Order: 15.07.2011 Between: G.Thoyajakshi Reddy ..Petitioner and The District Collector and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7402 of 2009 ORDER :- The petitioner, the fair price shop dealer of K.V.M.Agraharam, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, is aggrieved by the cancellation of his authorisation by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, under proceedings dated 01.03.2005, which stood confirmed in appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, in proceedings dated 08.09.2006 and thereafter, in revision before the District Collector, Chittoor, in proceedings dated 28.02.2009. This Court, by order dated 09.04.2009, directed the respondent authorities not to make any permanent arrangement in the place of the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition. The short ground on which this writ petition is amenable to disposal is that the petitioner alleges that the report dated 03.09.2004 submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vedurukuppam, which formed the basis for the cancellation of his authorisation, as reflected in the orders passed by the authorities below, was not furnished to him. The respondent authorities did not choose to file a counter affidavit rebutting this specific averment. In that view of the matter, the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M.Kalyani v. District Collector, Prakasam District[1], wherein the Division Bench observed that if the primary report on the basis of which charges were framed by the licencing authority against the dealer was not furnished to him it would vitiate the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case effectively. It was further held that reasonable opportunity given to the dealer should be real and effective and merely because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it would not fulfil such requirement. The judgment in M.Kalyani was an affirmation of the earlier order of this Court i n K.Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and others[2]. In the light of the aforestated legal position, the failure on the part of the authorities in furnishing a copy of the report dated 03.09.2004 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vedurukuppam, to the petitioner would vitiate the entire proceedings and render the cancellation of his authorisation void and non est in the eye of law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings of the primary, appellate and revisionary authorities effecting cancellation of the petitioner’s authorisation. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 15, 2011 lmv HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7402 of 2009 15.07.2011 lmv [1] 2006(5) ALD 796 [2] 1996(1) ALD 473