THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.18060 of 2006 18th January, 2010 Between :- Harijan Bhaskar .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, And others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.18060 of 2006 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 29-8-2006 and in W.P.M.P.No.22667/2006, the following order was made:- “Any appointment made shall be subject to further orders that may be passed in the Writ Petition.” 2. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.G/221/2005 dt.29-8-2005 by canceling the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop on fake and tale grounds and the Joint Collector also confirmed the same, finally the 1st respondent also vide in its proceedings No.CSI/49/2006, dt.10-7-2006 confirmed, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the above proceedings as illegal and direct the respondents to restore the petitioner Fair Price Shop authorization and pass such other suitable orders. 3. Counter affidavit also had been filed. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the facts had been referred to. In the counter affidavit filed several such facts had been denied. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the writ petitioner involved himself in several irregularities violating the conditions of authorization and hence the authorization was cancelled giving ample opportunity. Thus the appeal and the revision also had been dismissed and hence this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 5. The learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies however pointed out that both the original and the appellate authority recorded reasons though the revisional authority – 1st respondent had not recorded reasons in detail. The revisional authority – 1st respondent recorded reasons as hereunder:- “The case came up for final hearing before me on 10-7- 2006. The revision-petitioner or his Counsel did not appear till 3.00 p.m. I, therefore, chose to decide the matter on merits. In his order under revision, the Joint Collector discussed and gave his findings charge-wise after going through the record of enquiry and the explanation given by the revision-petitioner which is not based on any iota of evidence and his explanation that the charges were the result of political change in the village, is unconvincing. I see no cogent reason in this revision-petition to interfere with the orders of the Joint Collector and as such, the revision-petition is dismissed.” 6. It is pertinent to note that it had been recorded that the revision- petitioner or his Counsel did not appear till 3.00 p.m. and hence the 1st respondent-revisional authority had chosen to decide the matter on merits. This Court had carefully gone through the grounds of revision. It is needless to say that this is a matter relating to the cancellation of authorization. The revisional authority also is expected to record reasons while deciding the matter. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion touching the merits and demerits. However, this Court is satisfied that in the light of the nature of the order made by the 1st respondent, the same being not in accordance with law, the order made by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted that the 1st respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner, hear the matter and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner also is at liberty to move appropriate applications praying for interim orders, if the writ petitioner is so advised. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 18th January, 2010 smr