IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14644 of 2008 Between: Gunturi Venkateshwarlu S/o. Bangaru Reddy Madalavaripalem, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector (CS) FAC Ongole. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Prakasam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Megada Obulaiah S/o. Obulaiah Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the natrure of writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in Rc. CS2/2670/2008 dt. 4-7-2008 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to Provisions of Essential Commodities Act and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. Shop dealer and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14644 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri I. Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 The petitioner assails the order of the 1st respondent bearing reference No. Rc.CS2/2670/2008 dated 04-07-2008 whereby the 1st respondent stayed the operation of the 2nd respondent’s order dated 11-06-2008 pending disposal of the appeal. In 2004, the 2nd respondent invited applications for grant of authorization for a Fair Price Shop in Madalavaripalem village, Podili mandal, Prakasham District. The petitioner, 4th respondent and others responded to the said notification with their applications. The 4th respondent was selected and appointed, allegedly in violation of the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 53 and despite the 4th respondent being ineligible (alleged) in view of his involvement in a criminal case and also for the reason that he availed subsidized loan from the State Government. Aggrieved by the selection of the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by an order dated 29-09-2005 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the grant of authorization in favour of the 4th respondent. Against the 1st respondent’s order dated 29-09-2005, the 4th respondent preferred a revision to the District Collector, Ongole. By the order dated 06-05-2006, the District Collector, Ongole remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent herein directing the said respondent to conduct a de novo inquiry duly considering the pleadings of both the parties i.e., the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent on remand as above, by an order dated 11-06-2008 granted authorization in favour of the petitioner for Madalavaripalem village and in consequence thereof the petitioner was pursuing the business. On 23-06-2008 the petitioner sates to have preferred a caveat before the 1st respondent against any possible appeal that may be preferred by the 4th respondent. It is the petitioner’s complaint that despite lodging a caveat before the 1st respondent neither was a copy of appeal served on the counsel for the petitioner nor on him and the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 04-07-2008. To the extent relevant and material, the impugned order reads as under: “After careful examination of the Appeal, the appeal is taken on file and the operation of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur issued vide reference 1st read above is hereby stayed pending disposal of the Appeal Petition.” As the 1st respondent records that he is exercising the discretion to stay the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11-06- 2008 granting authorization in favour of the petitioner ‘after careful examination of the appeal’ the 1st respondent was required to have recorded reasons as to the points of fact or law which appealed to the 1st respondent in support of exercise of discretion in a particular manner i.e, granting stay. The 1st respondent did not record any reasons whatsoever for staying the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11-06-2008 which was in favour of the petitioner. The 1st respondent is exercising quasi judicial authority and is required to record reasons particularly when the impugned order states that it is passed ‘after careful examination of the appeal’. Since the order impugned is bereft of reasons, it is invalidated. The impugned order of the first respondent dated 11-06- 2008 bearing reference No. Rc.CS2/2670/2008 is for the above reasons, quashed. It is open to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and after recording reasons. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 11-07-2008 Pvks/*