The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.26002 of 2006 Dated 2nd July, 2010 Between: U.Pulla Reddy …Petitioner And The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Rajanikanth Jwala Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr.N.Ravi Prasad. The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification, dated 01-12-2006, issued by respondent No.3, whereby he has called for applications for filling up the vacancy of fair price shop dealership of Akkapalli Village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District, on permanent basis. The petitioner was permanent fair price shop dealer of the above-said village having been appointed in the year 1998. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of his fair price shop dealership on certain allegations. Pending those proceedings, his authorisation was suspended. The petitioner has availed several legal remedies in that connection. It will suffice to note that by order, dated 12-04-2005, respondent No.3 cancelled the petitioner’s authorisation. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.2 on 12-04-2005. The said appeal was disposed of by respondent No.2, by order, dated 22-09- 2005, whereby he has set aside the order of cancellation of the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership passed by respondent No.3 and restored the petitioner’s dealership. Respondent No.5, who was appointed as a temporary dealer in the place of the petitioner during his suspension period and subsequent to the cancellation period, filed a revision before respondent No.1, who has granted an ex parte order of stay on 09-11-2005. According to the petitioner, while he was continuing to receive notices of hearing of the revision petition, respondent No.3 issued the impugned notification calling for applications for filling up the vacancy of fair price shop dealership of the above- mentioned Village on permanent basis. He has, therefore, filed the present Writ Petition on the main ground that the issuance of the impugned notification even before disposal of the revision petition by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. At the hearing, Sri Rajanikanth Jwala, learned Counsel for the petitioner, invited this Court’s attention to hearing notices, dated 15-02-2006 and 20-03-2006, to substantiate the petitioner’s plea that even after issuance of the impugned notification, the office of respondent No.1 has issued hearing notices and therefore, this material amply proves that the revision petition was pending both at the time of issuance of the impugned notification and also thereafter. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, who has taken time to produce the record, has today produced record. A perusal of the record shows that order, dated 04-01-2006, was passed by respondent No.1 allowing the revision petition filed by respondent No.5. It is mentioned in the order that after adjourning the case for several times, the revision petition was finally heard on 17- 12-2005, during which both the Advocates were present and have argued the case. The record also contains two notices, dated 20-03-2006 and 25-03-2006, fixing the date of hearing of the revision on 25-03-2006 and 28-03-2006 respectively. The learned Government Pleader is unable to state the reason for giving such notices, when the record reveals that the final order was signed by respondent No.1 on 04-01-2006 itself. Be that as it may, the record does not reveal that the above-mentioned order passed in the revision has been marked to the petitioner. On the other hand, it is seen from the endorsement contained on the backside of the order itself that copies of the order were marked to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bestavaripeta, Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, and respondent No.5. Some one on behalf of K.V.Suba Reddy is shown to have received a copy. There is nothing on record to show that the said order, passed by respondent No.1, was either marked to the petitioner or served on him or any of his representatives. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended, and in my view rightly, that his client is not even aware of the passing of the order by respondent No.1. In the absence of any material to show that the order passed by respondent No.1 was served on the petitioner, I find justification in this submission. However, the fact remains that respondent No.1 disposed of the revision petition before the impugned notification was issued. But in the absence of service of a copy of the said order on the petitioner, he was disabled from questioning the same. Therefore, the petitioner was denied an opportunity of availing his remedy before respondent No.3 has initiated the process of filling up the vacancy on permanent basis by issuing the impugned notification. For this reason, the impugned notification cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Respondent No.1 shall serve a copy of order, dated 04-01-2006, passed by respondent No.1, on the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the order copy, the petitioner is entitled to avail his remedy if he feels aggrieved by the said order. The respondents shall not issue a fresh notification for a period of three months. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd July, 2010 lur