THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.26212, 26214, 26215, 26216, 26217, 26219, 26221, 26540, 26544, 26547, 26549 AND 26557 OF 2008 DATED 28TH JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN Ch.Ramajaneyulu and others. …Petitioners And The District Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, Nellore and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.26212, 26214, 26215, 26216, 26217, 26219, 26221, 26540, 26544, 26547, 26549 AND 26557 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are amenable to resolution on a short ground. All the petitioners are Fair Price Shop Dealers of Kovur Mandal in Nellore District. Their authorizations were cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali Division, on charges founded on a report submitted by a team of 14 Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildars and 2 Mandal Revenue Inspectors of Kovur. This report led to the issuance of show cause notices to the petitioners alleging that they were involved in the issuance of bogus cards and drawal of essential commodities in the names of such bogus card holders, thereby resulting in misuse of essential commodities for personal gain. The individual orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, cancelling the authorization of these dealers refer to a separate report dated 05.12.2007 of the Tahsildar, Kovur. The orders of cancellation passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, were affirmed in appeal and thereafter in revision, by the Joint Collector, SRSP Nellore District, and the District Collector, SRSP Nellore District, respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners came before this Court. While admitting these writ petitions, this Court granted interim suspension of the recovery sought to be effected from the dealers under Clauses 17(a) and 17(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. The respondent authorities were further directed not to make any permanent arrangements during the pendency of these writ petitions. Leaving aside the other grounds raised by the petitioners, the decisive one which would be sufficient for the purpose of disposing of this batch of cases is their specific allegation that the reports on the basis of which action was initiated against them were not made available to them despite their requests. Neither the report dated 09.08.2007 of the team of Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildars and Mandal Revenue Inspectors nor the report dated 05.12.2007 of the Tahsildar, Kovvur, is said to have been furnished to them. This aspect was specifically raised by them before the authorities below but the same was not dealt with. The petitioners’ allegation in this regard remains unrebutted even before this Court and is therefore presumed to be true. In the light of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.KALYANI v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT[1], affirming the earlier Judgment of this Court in K.RADHA KRISHNA NAIDU v. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, HYDERABAD[2], the principle is well settled that once the primary report on the basis of which charges were levelled against a dealer is not furnished to him, it vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to defend the case effectively. The Division Bench pointed out that reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the dealer submitted his explanation it would not fulfill the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show cause notice clearly indicates that the only basis is the report. In the light of the aforestated legal position, the failure on the part of the authorities in making available to the dealers the copies of the reports, which formed the basis and foundation for the action initiated against them, renders the entire proceedings invalid in law. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings of the primary, appellate and revisionary authorities cancelling the petitioners’ authorizations as Fair Price Shop Dealers. In the light of this final order, miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 28TH JUNE, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] 2006 (5) ALD 796 (DB) [2] 1996 (1) ALD 473