IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.552 of 2009 BETWEEN Ulleppa Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Anantapur District and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, the fair price shop dealer of Uddehal village, Bommanahal Mandal, Anantapur District, assails the action of the respondent authorities in canceling his authorization. 2. This Court, by order dated 27.01.2009, directed the authorities not to make any permanent arrangements for the said fair price shop. WVMP.No.1271 of 2009 is filed by the respondent authorities to vacate the said direction. 3. With the consent of the counsel the main writ petition is taken up for disposal. 4. Basing on the report dated 13.12.2005 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommanahal Mandal, show cause notice dated 18.12.2005 was issued to the petitioner detailing as many as nine charges. Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 03.01.2006. Thereupon, by proceedings dated 10.03.2006, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. In appeal, the said order was set aside by the Joint Collector, Anantapur and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing and disposal duly affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, accordingly issued notice dated 17.04.2006 calling upon the petitioner to appear before him personally on 29.04.2006 along with relevant records. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared on the said date but the RDO was not available in his office upto 5 PM. A specific averment to this effect is made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 6. The RDO, taking note of the absence of the petitioner on 29.04.2006 and on the subsequent dates i.e. 15.05.2006 and 23.04.2007, passed orders on 29.08.2007 stating that it was clear that the petitioner had no other explanation to offer in the matter and accordingly confirmed the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization as the fair price shop dealer of Uddehal village under the earlier proceedings dated 10.03.2006. The same was confirmed in appeal and thereafter, in revision. 7. In his counter, the RDO, while narrating the factual aspects as aforestated, did not choose to address the petitioner’s allegation that though he was present on 29.04.2006, he was not afforded a hearing owing to the absence of the officer. He however stated that further opportunity was given to the petitioner pursuant to his representation but in spite of the same the petitioner failed to appear either on 15.05.2006 or 23.04.2007. There is however no explanation forthcoming as to why the RDO did not deal with the matter on merits notwithstanding the failure of the petitioner. Pertinent to note, the earlier order of cancellation dated 10.03.2006 had been set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded by the appellate authority for fresh enquiry. Therefore, the RDO could not have merely resorted to confirming the earlier order dated 10.03.2006 without dealing with the merits of the matter. 8. That apart, it is clear from the notice dated 17.04.2006 that the basis for the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner was the report dated 13.12.2005 of the MRO, Bommanahal. The petitioner specifically alleged in his affidavit that this report was not made available to him at any stage of the proceedings. There is no answer to this allegation. 9. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in K. RADHA KRISHNA NAIDU v. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, HYDERABAD[1] and M. KALYANI v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT[2], unless the primary report on the basis of which charges are framed against the dealer is furnished to such dealer, 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 is relevant to note that in K. RADHA KRISHNA NAIDU’s case (1 supra), the dealer was given an opportunity of personal hearing but in spite of the same the Court held that such an opportunity would not be real as the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer. Applying the aforestated ratio to the facts of the present case, notwithstanding the failure of the petitioner to attend the enquiry personally, the fact that the basic report of the MRO, Bommanahal, was not furnished to him would vitiate the entire proceedings on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 29.08.2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District, canceling the petitioner’s authorization as the fair price shop dealer of Uddehal village. In consequence, the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities confirming the same also stand nullified. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J June 16, 2011 DSK [1] 1996 (1) ALD 473 [2] 2006 (5) ALD 796 (DB)