IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 392 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/01/2008 in WP NO : 18431 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Chintapally Venkat Reddy, S/o. Balreddy, R/o. Chinnakondur (V), Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) The District Colector, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda. 2) The District Colector, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda. 3) The Joint Colector, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda. 4) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongiri Revenue Division at Bhongiri, Nalgonda District. 5) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Choutuppal Mandal, at Choutuppal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.SATYA PRASAD Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Order dated 17.1.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.18231 of 2007 has been challenged in this appeal. 2. The appellant – original respondent No.5 is the Sarpanch of Chinnakondur Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, who has been aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the matter has been remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir for re-examining the issue with regard to cancellation of licence of respondent No.1. 3. Upon perusal of the record we find that it is not in dispute that the District Collector interfered with the order passed by the Joint Collector on the grounds which were not available to him for the reason that the ground which was considered for the purpose of cancellation of licence was not at all under consideration of the Revenue Divisional Officer when, at an initial stage, the licence was cancelled by him. For the afore-stated reason, the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 4. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 5. Needless to say that it would be open to the present appellant to bring it to the notice of the Revenue Divisional Officer if there are other grounds against respondent No.1 and we are sure that the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e. respondent No.4 will look into all allegations leveled against respondent No.1 and, after affording sufficient opportunity to respondent No.1, shall pass an appropriate order. 6. Subject to the afore-stated observation, the appeal is dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 21, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs