THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24984 of 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated above and those that may be urged at the time of herein, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI by calling for relevant records and the impugned proceedings D.Dis.No.610/2006/S2, dtd. 01-11-2006 in SR® 20/2005 S.2., including the impugned proceedings Rc.No.6/2003.B., 14-07-2004 and D.Dis.247/2005 S.2 in SRA.No.14/2004 dtd.26-4-2005 of the respondents respectively may be quashed by declaring the action of the respondents as arbitrary, illegal and violative of articles 14, 19(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides gross violation of principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions of APPDS (Control) Order, 2001 with all consequential and attendant benefits.” On the ground that the petitioner is not residing in the Village from the last 2½ years and his son by name, S.Ashok is acting as a benami dealer and is distributing the essential commodities only 3 days in a month, charging higher rates and without correct weighment; that he has not released the Mid-Day Meal rice in time, which resulted in inconvenience to the students, who are being served Midday Meal and that the show cause notice sent to him is not served as he is not available in the Village, the third respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District, passed orders on 14.07.2004 in Rc.No.6/2003 B, cancelling the authorization granted in his favour, in exercise of power under Clause 3(1)(4) of the Annexure to the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, which is framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the second respondent - Joint Collector, Srikakulam, vide order bearing D.Dis.247/2005 S.2, dated 26.04.2005 in SRA.No.14/2004 and further, the said order was also confirmed in the revision filed by the petitioner before the first respondent – District Collector, Srikakulam, vide order bearing D.Dis.No.610/2006/S2, dated 01.11.2006 in SR(R) 20/2005 S.2. At the stage of admission, this Court has directed the respondents not to make any permanent arrangement in the place of the petitioner till final orders are passed in the Writ Petition. In this Writ Petition, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and ex facie unbelievable. It is submitted that when the petitioner is not residing in the Village from the last 2½ years, there is no reason for the respondents for not taking action against him. It is also submitted that in any event, there is no opportunity given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that as much as the petitioner was not available in the Village itself, show-cause notice could not be served on him and the same was returned. I have perused copies of the orders of the primary, appellate and revisional authorities. Even according to the respondents, the petitioner was running the shop through his son, by name, S.Ashok. If the petitioner was not available in the Village, there is no reason for not serving the show cause notice on his son, who was running the shop allegedly as a benami dealer. In spite of the fact that the notice sent to the petitioner was returned, the third respondent without availing any other alternative modes for service of notice, passed the order cancelling his fair price shop authorization. If the notice was not served on the petitioner, as he was not available in the Village, it is for the respondents to ensure that at least, it could have been pasted at the last known address of his residence in the Village. The impugned orders are passed without making any effort either to serve notice by affixture or by serving it on the petitioner’s son, who was admittedly running the shop on his behalf. Though the allegations against the petitioner appear to be serious, it is not in dispute that the respondents passed the impugned orders without serving notice on the petitioner as such they cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders passed by the primary, appellate and revisional authorities are hereby set aside and the petitioner on his own shall approach the third respondent and collect the show cause notice issued in Rc.No.6/2003, dated 05.01.2004, as referred to in reference No.4 of order, dated 14.07.2004, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. On filing such explanation, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate final orders by considering the same. Till such appropriate final orders are passed, existing arrangements as on today shall be continued for distribution of essential commodities and no steps shall be taken to appoint any third party in the place of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed with the directions and observations indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th SEPTEMBER, 2011. Note:issue c.c. in one week. kvni