THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24121 of 2006 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer of Kasipadu Village, Pedakurapadu Mandal, Guntur District, has questioned order, dated 08.11.2004 passed by the second respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, in proceedings D.Dis.No.3127/2004B, cancelling the authorisation granted in his favour, as confirmed by the first respondent/appellate authority – Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Guntur, in order, dated 09.03.2005 in A.C.D.Dis.No.68/2004-S7. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Kasipadu Village on 19.09.1991. The Tahsildar of Pedakurapadu Mandal seems to have submitted a report on 17.06.2004 alleging that the petitioner was misbehaving with certain lady cardholders and not distributing the essential commodities properly. Based on the said report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and thereby, a show cause notice was issued framing four charges against him alleging that he was misbehaving with the cardholders, he tried to rape one lady cardholder on 09.06.2004, is not distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders properly and is not residing in the Village after the incident on 09.06.2004. Thus, he has violated the conditions of authorisation and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. For the said show cause notice, he submitted explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, the second respondent/primary authority by holding that the charges framed against him were held proved, has ordered cancellation of his fair price shop authorisation. As against the same, he carried the matter in appeal before the first respondent/appellate authority, who in turn, by order, dated 09.03.2005, rejected the same stating that the statements recorded in the proceedings show that he was misbehaving with the cardholders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. In this case, it is the allegation of the petitioner that though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, he was not given any opportunity before preparing report, dated 17.06.2004 by the Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, in Rc.No.71/04A, and was also not furnished with the copy of such report, as such, entire proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice. With regard to the allegation against the petitioner that he tried to rape a lady cardholder, by name, Adapala Ramanamma, on 09.06.2004, it is stated that she is the wife of one G.Chinaveera Raghavaiah, who is residing in the house opposite to his house, and with whom, there is a dispute with regard to recovery of money. It is further stated that the petitioner has lent money to the said person and when he insisted for recovery, there was an attack on him on the aforesaid date i.e. 09.06.2004 by the said Raghavaiah and others. Based upon the same, a case was registered against them in Crime No.61 of 2004 for the offence under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on the file of Pedakurapadu Police Station. It is further stated that after conducting necessary investigation, a final report was filed in the aforesaid crime. Though it is alleged that there is an attempt by the petitioner to commit a rape on the lady cardholder, even a complaint was not lodged before the police. It is further stated that all the allegations made against the petitioner are false and incorrect and no orders could have been passed cancelling his fair price shop authorization based on the ex parte report, without recording any valid finding in regard thereto. It is further stated that though the appeal is a substantive remedy as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, the appellate authority without examining the grounds in detail, has rejected the same by recording slippery findings. Though the Writ Petition is of 2006 and pending before this Court nearly for five years, no counter-affidavit is filed refuting the allegations of the petitioner but it is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that in view of gross misbehaviour of the petitioner with the cardholders and as he was not supplying the essential commodities correctly, the second respondent cancelled his fair price shop authorization by order, dated 08.11.2004. A perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner indicates that except charge No.2, all other charges are vague. Though there is an allegation against the petitioner as to his misbehaviour with the cardholders, there is no reference to the names of such cardholders and also the date of inspection. With regard to the charge as to his not distributing the essential commodities properly, there is no reference to the names of the cardholders and the particulars of the date or the month, in which, he has not supplied the essential commodities to the cardholders properly. In regard to the charge of his not residing in the Village, it was explained by him that after the attack on him on 09.06.2004, he was admitted in the Government General Hospital on 10.06.2004 and was discharged on 13.06.2004. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that he was not residing in the Village. As regards the specific charges that he misbehaved with the cardholders and tried to commit rape on the lady cardholder on 09.06.2004, he denied the same stating that he has not received the stock till 09.06.2004 as such there was no occasion of his misbehaving with the cardholders on that date. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is the specific allegation of the petitioner that due to animosity, as there is a dispute with regard to recovery of money lent by him, Raghavaiah, who is the husband of the cardholder, by name, Adapala Ramanamma, along with three others attacked on him and on his complaint, a case was registered against them in Crime No.61 of 2004 for the alleged offence under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. When the matter is taken up, a copy of the final report filed before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli, is produced before this Court and a perusal of the same clearly indicates that there are some disputes between the petitioner and Raghavaiah, who is the husband of the alleged cardholder, by name, Adapala Ramanamma, and in that context, there was an attack on the petitioner on 09.06.2004. The said final report supports the case of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that though there is an allegation against the petitioner that he tried to commit rape on the lady cardholder on 09.06.2004, no complaint was lodged against him before the police. It is further to be noticed that with regard to the complaint lodged against the husband of the cardholder and three others, final report was filed stating that they are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. In this view of the matter, it can be said that the abovementioned allegation appears to be false and it was made only as a counterblast in view of the disputes between the petitioner and the husband of the alleged lady cardholder with regard to money lent by him. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner specifically pleaded that though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him based on the report stated to have been submitted by the Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, on 17.06.2004 in Rc.No.71/04A, a copy of the same was not supplied to him, but there is no rebuttal by the respondents by filing counter-affidavit in the Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment rendered in the case of M.KALYANI v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM, ONGOLE AND OTHERS[1], in which, the Division Bench of this Court in identical circumstance that the fair price shop authorisation was cancelled without supplying the copy of the report, held as under: “11. In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the authorisation 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 v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and others, 1996(1) ALD 473 = 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP), 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 this case, as the Tahsildar’s report, based on which the second respondent passed the impugned order, was not supplied to the petitioner, by applying the ratio laid down in the above cited judgment (1 supra), which squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand, it can be said that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Though the remedy of appeal is a substantive one as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, the appellate authority also did not deal with the grounds of appeal and has rejected the same by recording slippery findings. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and order, dated 08.11.2004, passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the appellate authority in order, dated 09.03.2005, is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to restore the authorisation of the petitioner by supplying him essential commodities for distribution of the same to the cardholders, within a period of three (3) months from today. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni [1] 2006(5) ALD 796 (DB)