IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8625 OF 2009 Between: Masapet Mallaiah. … Petitioner AND The District Collector & District Magistrate Medak at Sangareddy and 2 others. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : The cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization as the Fair Price Shop dealer of Vaddepally Village, Daulthabad Mandal, Medak District, is called in question. The said cancellation was effected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, under proceedings dated 15-02-2005 and was confirmed in appeal by the Collector (CS), Medak at Sangareddy, by order dated 06-03-2006 and in revision by the District Collector, Medak, by order dated 16-03-2009. 2. By order dated 24-04-2009, taking note of the fact that the petitioner enjoyed stay orders during the pendency of the appeal and the revision, this Court permitted him to carry on business by granting interim suspension of the impugned proceedings. 3. Perusal of the orders under challenge reflects that the case against the petitioner was based upon the enquiry report dated 10-11-2004 of the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Daulthabad, which finds specific mention at reference No.1 in the show cause notice dated 01-12-2004. The proceedings dated 15-02-2005 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, are brief to the point of being cryptic and reflect no reasons whatsoever. However, the appellate authority in his order dated 06-03- 2006 made a specific reference to the findings of the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Daulthabad, and the statements of the card holders recorded by him. The revisionary authority, taking note of the absence of the petitioner despite service of notices, dismissed the case on merits without setting out reasons. 4. The counter filed by the respondent authorities also categorically states that the enquiry report and the statements of the cardholders were taken into account as proof of the irregularities committed by the petitioner. 5. It is therefore established beyond doubt that the respondent authorities completely banked upon the findings recorded in the enquiry report dated 10-11-2004 and the statements of the card holders which found mention therein. There is however no indication of the said report having been disclosed to the petitioner or being supplied to him. 6. This Court in K.Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and others[1], followed thereafter by a Division Bench of this Court in M.Kalyani v. District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and others[2], held to the effect that unless the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the licencing authority against the dealer was furnished to him, it would vitiate the proceedings, owing to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity being given to the dealer to defend his case effectively. 7. Viewed thus, the failure on the part of the respondent authorities to take the petitioner into confidence as regards the enquiry by the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Daulthabad, and his consequent findings recorded in the report dated 10-11-2004 vitiates the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization as a Fair Price Shop Dealer. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 15-02-2005 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, canceling the petitioner’s authorization as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Vaddepally Village, along with the orders of the appellate and revisionary authorities confirming the same. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 30-04-2011. KVS/BSB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8625 OF 2009 (Allowed. No costs) April 30, 2011. KVS/BSB [1] 1996 (1) ALD 473=1996(1)LS456(AP) [2] 2006 (5) ALD 796 (DB)