HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25465 of 2008 Date : 08.11.2011 Between : M. Sathaiah. …..Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25465 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Dhanoor village of Tekmal Mandal in Medak District. Basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tekmal, wherein, he has reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak that the petitioner is not distributing the essential commodities properly and he is charging higher charges with less weighments, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of petitioner’s authorization. As many as 7 charges are framed in the cancellation proceedings and a show cause notice, dated 11.10.2004, was issued in Proceedings No.J/2106/2004. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, petitioner has filed a detailed explanation on 01.11.2004. However, the primary authority, on considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner has admitted during the inquiry conducted on 25.09.2004 that he was issuing less quantity of essential commodities to card holders, has passed the order of cancellation, dated 13.10.2004, issued in Proceedings No.J/2106/2004. As against the same, the matter was carried in appeal before the appellate authority/Joint Collector. When the appeal was decided by the appellate authority without giving proper opportunity, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the revisional authority/District Collector. The District Collector, on the ground that though the matter was listed for hearing on 02.07.2008, the petitioner was absent, passed the impugned order, dated 30th September 2008, in Case No.CSA/9/REV/07, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, as confirmed by the Joint Collector. In this case, it is the case of the petitioner that the order of primary authority itself is per se illegal and conflicting findings are recorded in the said order. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a finding is recorded that he was not present inspite of intimation for his presence on 25.09.2004. At the same time, it is observed in the said order that in the inquiry conducted on 25.09.2004, he has admitted that he issued less quantity of essential commodities to the cardholders. It is further submitted that even the appellate and revisional authorities have not considered the matter in proper perspective. It is submitted that on 02.07.2008, the petitioner approached the office of respondents and represented to the staff that his Advocate was out of station and requested to place such request before the District Collector for the purpose of adjournment. Though he was informed that adjournment date would be informed, the impugned order is passed on the ground that the Advocate was not present on 02.07.2008. I have perused the order of the revisional authority, dated 30th September 2008, passed in case No.CSA/9/REV/07. Though the allegations against the petitioner were referred to in the said order, ultimately, he has upheld the order of the appellate authority on the ground that inspite of giving opportunity, revision petitioner was absent on 02.07.2008. As the earlier orders were passed in revision filed by him, remanding the case to the Joint Collector mainly on the ground that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the appellate authority in view of the plea of the petitioner that the primary authority has recorded conflicting findings and the order is passed for cancellation without examining the explanation filed by him, and as it is stated that he was not heard even by the revisional authority on 02.07.2008, I deem it is a fit case to give further opportunity to the petitioner by remitting the matter to the learned District Collector, Medak, Sangareddy, to consider the revision filed by the petitioner afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the findings recorded by the primary authority are conflicting, as much as the matter is now remanded to the District Collector, I am not inclined to go into the said aspect in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 30th September 2008, passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector in CSA/9/REV/07, is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent, with a direction to consider it afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be a further direction that the order of cancellation, passed by the 4th respondent, as confirmed by the 3rd respondent/appellate authority, shall remain suspended till appropriate final orders are passed by the 2nd respondent/revisional authority. The writ petition is allowed with the directions referred above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th November 2011 ajr