IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3338 of 2008 Between: Smt. M. Venkatamma W/o. Govardhan, R/o. Bommareddypalli, Kulkacherla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Tahsildar, Kulakacherla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.DEVANAND Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3338 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.E/2227/2007 dated .08.2007 (wrongly mentioned as .08.2008 in the impugned order) and the consequential order dated 24.01.2008 of respondent No.1. Heard Sri B.Devanand, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Bomreddipally Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the year 1997. Her authorization was cancelled by the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.1 in August 2007. At the hearing, Sri B.Devanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that before passing the impugned order of cancellation, no show cause notice was served on the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to her. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. At the previous hearing of the Writ Petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies took time for producing the relevant record in order to ascertain whether show cause notice was served on the petitioner. Today, at the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader reported to the Court that the verification of the relevant record does not show that any notice was served on the petitioner. The impugned proceedings also do not contain any specific statement that show cause notice was served on the petitioner and if so, the date on which the service was effected. It is mentioned that on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar, the petitioner has been issued show cause notice calling her explanation and she failed to submit her explanation within the stipulated time. From the absence of specific statement in the impugned order on the service of notice to the petitioner coupled with absence of proof of service, it has necessarily to be presumed that no notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed cancelling her authorization. The impugned order is, therefore, in serious violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is quashed. The petitioner’s authorization stands restored. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh, if they so desire. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 24th March 2008 Note: CC by one week B/O RRB