HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28369 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer of K.Agraharam Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, Kadapa District, questioned the orders, dated 20.06.2007, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, whereby his fair price shop authorization was cancelled, as confirmed by the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Kadapa, in appeal, by an order, dated 25.02.2008 and also by the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Kadapa, in revision, by an order, dated 04.10.2008. The petitioner was issued show cause notice, dated 23.05.2007, wherein four charges were framed against him, alleging that the petitioner is not distributing the essential commodities to the card holders properly; that he is distributing essential commodities such as rice, kerosene and sugar to the cardholders at higher rates than fixed by the Government; that he has not distributed the essential commodities to an extent of 6.20 quintals of rice, 28 litres of kerosene during the months of August 2004 and September 2004; and that he has not exhibited the stock-cum-price board at the fair price shop. In view of the said irregularities, the petitioner was directed to show cause why his fair price shop authorization should not be cancelled. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner has filed his explanation. It appears, in the explanation, the petitioner has merely stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, who is the inspecting authority, pressurized by the political leaders has submitted the report to the effect that he is not distributing the essential commodities properly; that he is distributing the essential commodities at higher rates; and that he is not maintaining the stock-cum-price register, which is false and baseless. The Revenue Divisional Officer not being satisfied with the said explanation offered by the petitioner, passed, the orders dated 20.06.2007, vide proceedings Ref.C/805/2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Joint Collector, who by recording a finding that the inspecting officer verified 30 cardholders of the fair price shop of K.Agraharam, who gave statement to the effect that the petitioner was not distributing commodities properly, passed an order dated 25.01.2008, confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further, the matter was carried in revision before the District Collector, who, in turn, holding that there are no reasonable grounds which can be treated as unjust and unfair in the order of the Joint Collector, has confirmed the order of cancellation of authorization of the petitioner, by dismissing the revision by order, dated 04.10.2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the show cause notice is issued with specific allegations and the petitioner has filed his explanation to the same, it is obligatory on the part of the licensing authority to consider the said explanation and record its findings. He further submitted that without supplying a copy of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Lakkireddypalli, to the petitioner, which is relied on by the authorities while passing the impugned orders, it is not open for the respondent-authorities to cancel the authorization granted to the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.Kalyani V. District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole[1]. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that the primary authority after considering the explanation of the petitioner for each of the charges, having found the charges to be true, passed the order cancelling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, which is confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned orders. From a perusal of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer-primary authority, it is clear that though he has referred to the explanation of the petitioner for each of the charges framed against him, held the charges are proved, only on the ground that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer is against the petitioner. It is not in dispute that such a report is not supplied to the petitioner and that, at the stage of conducting enquiry by the Mandal Revenue Officer or the inspection, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case. In that view of the matter, the primary authority ought to have considered the charges framed against the petitioner with regard to the explanation filed by the petitioner instead of solely relying on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, in identical circumstances, held as under: - “In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. It is not in dispute that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to the appellant. In K. Radha Krishna Naidu vs. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and others, it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates 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 the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfill the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. In that case the petitioner therein had been given opportunity of personal hearing but even then the Court held that the opportunity was not real inasmuch as the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer. In S. Malla Reddy vs. M. Vijayalakshmi and others this Court held that the authorization of fair price shop could not have been cancelled on the basis of vague notice.” In the present case also, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer is not furnished to the petitioner and all the findings are recorded solely on the inspection report prepared by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Hence, the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would render support to the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is a clear case where the respondent-authorities have violated the principles of natural justice in recording findings in the impugned orders, based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, without even supplying a copy of the same to the petitioner to defend his case. Even the appellate and revisional authorities have not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal and revision, and simply confirmed the order of the primary authority, referring to the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to give opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and prove his innocence, by supplying him a copy of the report of Mandal Revenue Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 20.06.2007, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings Ref.C/805/2004, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, is hereby set aside, by remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, is directed to furnish a copy of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer to the petitioner and invite his objections for the same, after receipt of which, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, shall pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a further direction to the respondents to continue the arrangement which is existing as on today till appropriate orders are passed. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th September 2011 DR [1] 2006(5) ALD 796 (DB)