IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 7332 of 2004 BETWEEN: V. Koti Ratnam, S/o. Ellamandaiah, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Guntur District, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to declare the impugned order dt.15-12-2003 in Rc.No.3606/2002/B on the file of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BOMMINENI AGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner questions the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur dated 15.12.2003 in canceling his authorization in respect of the fair price shop at Konnuru Village, Atchampet Mandal for certain irregularities said to have been committed by him. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Fair Price Shop dealer of Konnuru Village, while so, the said dealership has been suspended on 19.02.2003 on the ground that the petitioner diverted rice into black market relating to Food For Work programme. Against the suspension order the petitioner filed an appeal along with stay application before the Joint Collector, Guntur. As the stay application was not disposed, the petitioner filed WP.No.18300 of 2003 and this Court while disposing the writ petition directed the Joint Collector to dispose the appeal within two months. The Joint Collector remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur and the RDO passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2003 in Rc.No.3606/2002/B canceling the authorization of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry and without giving a show cause notice. 4. No counter is forthcoming to rebut the said allegations. A perusal of the impugned order also does not disclose the issuance of any show cause notice, therefore, there cannot be any justification in canceling the authorization of the fair price shop dealership. The suspension order cannot be treated as a show cause notice. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order was rightly suspended by this Court by order dated 27.04.2004. The impugned order is accordingly set aside keeping it open to the second respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice, if he so chooses, for taking appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 24, 2008 DSK