IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28210 OF 2008 Between: Goka Mukunda Rao. … Petitioner AND The Tahsildar, Santha Bommali Mandal, Srikakulam District and three others. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : The petitioner, the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Runku Hanumanthapuram Village, Santha Bommali Mandal, Srikakulam District, calls in question the proceedings dated 29-12-2007 of the Sub Collector, Tekkali, cancelling his authorization. He also challenges the proceedings dated 06-08-2008 and 13-12-2008 of the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam, and the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam, respectively, confirming the said cancellation. 2. The petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 14-11-2007 specifying two charges relating to the irregularities allegedly committed by him. He submitted his explanation dated 24-11-2007. The case ultimately culminated in the cancellation of his authorization by the Sub-Collector, Tekkali, under the proceedings dated 29-12- 2007. The petitioner’s appeal against the said order before the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, resulted in the confirmation of the cancellation under orders dated 06-08-2008, which found further affirmation before the revisionary authority, the District Collector, Srikakulam, under orders dated 13-12- 2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present case. 3. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 26- 12-2008, directed status quo obtaining as on that day to be maintained. It is stated that the petitioner is continuing as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of the village pursuant to the above order. While so, Ugra Narasimha Self Help Group, Runku Hanumanthapuram Village, got itself impleaded in the writ petition as the fifth respondent stating that it was entrusted with the temporary distribution of essential commodities through the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop after the cancellation of his authorization and therefore claiming a vital interest in the matter. 4. Though the petitioner raised various contentions in support of his attack against the cancellation of his authorization, the only ground that is worthy of consideration is his allegation that in so far as the second charge pertaining to his selling underweighed commodities at a higher price is concerned, no enquiry was conducted and no cardholders were examined in his presence. He specifically averred in his affidavit that the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, submitted a preliminary report without conducting any enquiry and without examining any cardholders. 5. On the other hand, the proceedings dated 29-12- 2007 of the primary authority specifically referred to a public enquiry held by the authorities in which various cardholders were said to have complained against the petitioner with regard to his selling essential commodities at a higher price and with under-weighment. 6. The counter filed by the District Collector, Srikakulam, merely states to the effect that on an enquiry it was found that the petitioner was selling essential commodities at excess rates with under-weighment to the cardholders. This Court, in M.Sadasiva Sekhar v. District Collector, Kurnool[1], observed that a dealer would have to plead and prove prejudice caused to him by the procedure followed while cancelling his authorization. In that case also, the allegation against the dealer was that he had issued less quantities of rice to the cardholders and this Court held that failure to give the details of the complainant cardholders and an opportunity to cross-examine them would undoubtedly prejudice his defense. In the present case, the second charge against the petitioner appears to be founded on the enquiry said to have been held by the Deputy Tahsildar in which complaints were made against the petitioner both with regard to excess pricing as well as under-weighing of essential commodities. However, no details of such cardholders find mention in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. In the light of his unequivocal and unrebutted statement that no cardholder was examined in his presence, the prejudice caused to his defence is writ large. The cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization as the dealer of the subject Fair Price Shop would therefore stand vitiated on this short ground. The appellate and revisionary authorities did not address this aspect and their orders are therefore liable to be set aside. 7. The impleaded fifth respondent has no vested right to stake a claim for the subject dealership and the temporary arrangement made would necessarily have to abide by the result of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 8. In such circumstances, the orders under challenge are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Sub-Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer), Tekkali, to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter after giving due opportunity in all respects to the petitioner as aforestated. Such exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 17-06-2011/kvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28210 OF 2008 (Allowed. No costs) June 17, 2011. KVS _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 17-06-2011. KVS/BSB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.270 OF 2009 (Dismissed as withdrawn. No costs) April 30, 2011. KVS/BSB [1] 2003 (3) ALT 68