IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25986 of 2008 BETWEEN Smt. K. Vasundhara. ... PETITIONER AND District Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner, fair price shop dealer of Julkal village, Sangareddy, filed this writ petition questioning the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District dated 13.12.2005 passed in proceedings No.B2/784/2005 cancelling his authorization and further consequential orders of the Joint Collector in Case.No.CSA/2/A/2006 dated 30.05.2006 and the District Collector, Medak District in Case.No.CSA/10/Rev/2006 dated 30.09.2008. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to scheduled caste and was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Julkal village of Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District in the year 2001. Based on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Sangareddy, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of authorization before the third respondent – RDO. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that she did not maintain correct record; she is selling the kerosene at higher rate i.e. at Rs.10/- more than the prescribed rate; that she failed to open the shop as per the timings fixed by the authorities and that her husband is dealing on her behalf and there are variations in the stocks. Petitioner filed a detailed explanation to the said show cause notice, but the primary authority dissatisfied with the explanation passed the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 cancelling the authorization. As against the same, petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) through an Advocate, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 30.05.2006. Thereafter, the revision filed by the petitioner before the revisional authority was also dismissed by order dated 30.09.2008 confirming the orders of the primary as well as the appellate authorities. 3. At the stage of admission, after issuing notice to the respondents, this Court by order dated 23.12.2008 suspended the impugned orders by recording a, prima facie, finding that the impugned orders are passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents have considered the explanation offered by the petitioner in a routine and mechanical manner and passed the impugned orders cancelling her authorization. It is submitted that even the appellate authority, when an appeal was preferred through an advocate, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner dismissed the appeal. The revisional authority also did not record any valid reasons in its order and rejected the revision by a cryptic order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the fact that all the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, the primary authority has cancelled the authorization of the petitioner and the same is confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities and as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders in this writ petition. 6. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition wherein it is categorically stated that the appellate authority without giving any opportunity of hearing passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. I have also perused the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities. The appellate authority though marked a copy of the order to the petitioner through her advocate viz. Ch. Baswaraj of Sangareddy, there is no reference in the said order with regard to an opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner. The revisional authority has also not considered the various grounds raised by the petitioner and rejected the revision under a cryptic order by merely stating that the records of the lower Court are verified and the allegations against the petitioner are grave. 7. It may be noticed that the when the petitioner preferred an appeal through an advocate, the appellate authority ought to have notified the date of hearing before passing the order. As much as when substantive remedy of appeal is provided under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2001 itself, there is no reason to deny the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when the appeal was presented through an advocate. In that view of the matter and as much as the revisional authority has not considered the various grounds by the petitioner in her explanation, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to set aside the impugned orders of the appellate as well as revisional authorities. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy dated 30.05.2006 passed in Case.No.CSA/2/A/2006 and the order of the District Collector, Medak dated 30.09.2008 passed in Case.No.CSA/10/Rev/2006 are hereby set aside with a direction to the second respondent – appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh by giving notice of hearing to the petitioner and his advocate on record and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be a further direction that the arrangement, which exists as on today, for distribution of essential commodities in Julkal village of Sangareddy Mandal, shall continue till appropriate orders are passed by the appellate authority Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J September 22, 2011 DSK