IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1410 of 2008 Between: M. Lalitha W/o.M. Prakash Nizamabad Urban, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad. 2 The Tahsildar,, Nizamabad. Nizamabad District. 3 The District Supply Officer, Nizamabad . .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.86 of Nizamabad Urban, Nizamabad District. On the basis of inspection conducted on 30.07.2007, respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 31.07.2007 whereby the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on the following alleged irregularities. 1. The shop premises were shifted from main road to the house of the dealer without permission from the appointing authority. 2. The dealer has not cooperated with the inspecting team and refused to show authorization and recores. 3. At the time of inspection Smt. Lalitha who is original dealer was present and she refused to furnish the authorization and stock/sale register and coupons. Her behaviour with the inspecting team was rude. 4 . When interacted with card holders they deposed that they are not getting their Ecs properly and the behaviour of dealer and her husband are unfair and husband of dealer Sri Prakash who is running the shop always in intoxication mood and teasing the lady customers. The cardholders present at the time of inspection have unanimously demanded to cancel the authorization of the dealer. Accordingly the sworn statement of cardholders recorded. 5. On noticing several irregularities the DT (CS) has booked a 6-A case against the dealer and seized 25 Kgs Sugar and 100 Liters K.Oil under cover of panchanama and handed over to FP Shop No.49. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 on 08.10.2007 for restoration of her authorization. However, by order, dated 12.10.2007, respondent No.1 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, he sought to justify the order of cancellation. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 failed to follow the procedure envisaged under Clause 5(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the Order’). The learned counsel contends that respondent No.1 failed to observe the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order of cancellation, inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and her explanation was neither invited nor considered. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner’s representation, dated 08.10.2007 was considered by respondent No.1 and having not been satisfied with the same, he passed the impugned order of cancellation of authorization for the irregularities committed by the petitioner. Clause 5(4) of the Order reads as under: “The appointing authority may, at any time whether at the request of the authorized fair price shop or authorized establishment or suo motu after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, add to, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him under this clause.” A reading of the above-reproduced clause shows that the appointing authority is empowered either suo motu or at the request of the fair price shop dealer to amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization. But before doing so, he shall conduct enquiry as deemed necessary. It is, therefore, incumbent upon respondent No.1 to hold enquiry before passing any order adverse to the interests of the petitioner. The clause thus, embodies the principles of natural justice. A reading of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 08.10.2007. I have gone through the said purported explanation, wherein the petitioner stated that in view of certain differences between her husband and Sri Ramana Goud, certain false complaints were made against the petitioner in connection with running of fair price shop and the order of suspension is making the petitioner starve. The petitioner, therefore, requested for restoration of the authorization, which was under suspension. Indeed, respondent No.1 has not given any show cause notice and in this view of the matter, the representation made by the petitioner on 08.10.2007, on a careful reading of which in my view, by no stretch of imagination can be considered as an explanation to a show cause notice on merits. The approach of respondent No.1 is wholly perverse to say the least. Being the authority vested with the power to take action in case of irregularities, I have no doubt in my mind that respondent No.1 abused his authority in hastily cancelling the petitioner’s authorization by treating the representation made by the petitioner for revoking the suspension as an explanation on merits against proposed cancellation. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. The petitioner’s authorization stands restored. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.1 from initiating proceedings afresh, if he so desires and to hold enquiry in accordance with law and in consonance with the principles of natural justice before passing any order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th MARCH, 2008 kvni