HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6011 of 2008 Dated: 21.09.2010 Between: G.Veeranna. …..Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal & others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6011 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 18.02.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent-District Collector, confirming the earlier order passed by him, dated 17.07.2006, in Case No.CS.1/804/2005. The 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, issued a notification in exercise of powers under A.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, on 28.05.2005, inviting applications from the aspirants, for appointment of authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities for Shop No.2, Uppal village of Aija Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. As per the notification, preference was notified to SC, ST and physically handicapped categories. The writ petitioner herein and the 4th respondent were applicants along with others. in the selection process, respondent No.4 was selected vide proceedings of the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 20.06.2005, issued in Proceedings No.G/279/2005. Questioning the selection and appointment of respondent No.4, the petitioner herein carried the matter by way of appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, which was allowed. As against the same, the 4th respondent preferred revision before the 3rd respondent-District Collector. The District Collector, at first instance, by an order, dated 17.07.2006, passed in Case No. CS.1/804/2005, allowed the revision petition, by recording a finding that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, who is the competent authority, has followed the prescribed procedure, while making selections. On the ground that the District Collector/revisional authority has allowed the revision filed by the 4th respondent, without even notice to the petitioner, who was the appellant before the Joint Collector, the petitioner herein has earlier approached this Court and questioned the order, dated 17.07.2006, passed by the District Collector, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.17284 of 2006. This Court, by an order, dated 27th November 2007, allowed the aforesaid writ petition and quashed the order, dated 17.07.2006, on the ground that the petitioner was not put on notice before passing the said order, with a further direction to consider the matter afresh. Pursuant to the said orders, the present impugned order, dated 18.02.2008, is passed by the District Collector/revisional authority. In the aforesaid order, the revisional authority has not considered the matter on merits, but however, simply holding that he had already discussed the matter in detail in the earlier order, dated 17.07.2006, has confirmed the said order. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that when the earlier order, dated 17.07.2006, was already quashed by this Court, it was obligatory on the part of the revisional authority to consider the matter afresh, by considering the grounds of revision, placed by the 4th respondent and also the plea of the petitioner herein. It is further stated that no notice was served on the petitioner, after this Court has passed the orders on 27th November 2007 in W.P.No.17284 of 2006, and inspite of the fact that he did not appear in the matter, his presence was recorded and orders were passed. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that after disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner was heard and orders were passed. It is stated that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Although a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.4, there is no representation on his behalf, either in the forenoon session or afternoon session. When reasons were recorded by the Joint Collector while allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner, there appears no reason for not recording any reasons by the District Collector while allowing the revision filed by the 4th respondent. When orders, dated 17.07.2006, passed by the District Collector were questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.17284 of 2006, this Court quashed the aforesaid order, with a direction to the revisional authority-District Collector, to consider the matter afresh. Instead of considering the matter afresh in the light of the directions of this Court, the revisional authority simply disposed of the matter, merely stating that he has already discussed the matter in detail in the earlier order, dated 17.07.2006. When the earlier order was quashed by this Court, it is obligatory on the part of the revisional authority to record reasons afresh, but he ought not to have disposed of the matter on the ground that he has already discussed the matter in the earlier order, dated 17.07.2006. As no reasons have been recorded by the revisional authority while disposing of the revision, I deem it is a fit case to quash the impugned order, and remit the matter for fresh consideration, again by the revisional authority. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 18.02.2008, passed in Case No.CS.1/804/2005, by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, is quashed, with a direction to the revisional authority to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st September 2010. ajr