IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.21386 of 2006 Between: M. Syamalamma & others. … Petitioners And Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21386 of 2006 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed questioning the individual show cause notices dated 07.10.2006 issued to the petitioners by respondent No.1. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 11.06.2009, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos.6 and 14 died and that their legal representatives are required to be brought on record. Today, when the case came up, there is no representation for the petitioners and applications for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioners have not been filed. At any rate, since petitioner Nos.6 and 14 were the fair price shop dealers and the dealerships are not heritable, the cause will not survive for the legal representatives to come on record. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed in respect of petitioner Nos.6 and 14 as abated. With regard to the other petitioners, a perusal of the show cause notices show that the same were issued on the directions of the Collector (PW), Mahaboobnagar to cancel the petitioners’ authorization. The District Collector is the revisional authority. Therefore, no direction could have been issued by him for cancellation of the authorization. Respondent No.1 being subordinate authority to the District Collector, issuance of the impugned show cause notices would be an empty formality, if he intended to carry out the directions of the District Collector. If respondent No.1, who is the licencing and disciplinary authority, comes to an independent conclusion that the petitioners have indulged in irregularities, he is bound to hold an enquiry, give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Without following such a procedure, he is not entitled to issue the impugned notices. Accordingly, all the show cause notices, impugned in this writ petition, are set aside. Liberty is given to respondent No.1 to hold an independent enquiry and pass appropriate orders, after giving the petitioners reasonable opportunity. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.27124 of 2006 and WVMP.No.2295 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.06.2009 ES