IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 20269 of 2009 Between: A. Dayakar. .. PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar and another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1204 of Jammikunta village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. On the basis of the report of the Tahsildar, Jammikunta that certain variations are found in the stock, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar vide proceedings dated 22.09.2007. Questioning the said order, the petitioner approached the appellate authority i.e., the first respondent-Joint Collector and filed an appeal. The appellate authority was pleased to dispose of the said appeal remanding the matter to the second respondent vide order dated 23.05.2009. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent has passed an order in the month of July, 2009 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. The same is questioned in this writ petition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the matter was remanded, the second respondent issued a notice dated 17.06.2009 to the petitioner directing to appear before him on 29.06.2009 at 3.00 PM with the entire documentary evidence. His further contention is that though the petitioner approached the second respondent and expressed his inability stating that he does not have the record for the reason that the records were seized, the second respondent, without affording him any opportunity, passed the impugned order of cancellationl. When once the petitioner expressed his helplessness to produce the record, the second respondent should have summoned the record, as the same is available either with the Tahsildar or with his office. The order reads that he verified the records. But, in my considered view that the said verification by the second respondent in the absence of the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is not in accordance with law. Further, the order does not specify as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the authorization is liable for cancellation. The very purpose of issuing a show cause notice directing the petitioner to appear before him is, for the purpose of holding an enquiry. May be it is a fact that he looked into the record, but he did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to explain i.e., ‘enquiry’. For the above said reasons, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and the matter is once again remanded to the second respondent with a direction to him to afford an opportunity to the petitioner, hear him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:06.11.2009 Note: Issue CC by Monday. (Bo) sj