THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9965 OF 2006 DATED:27-9-2011 Between: T. Radhakrishnaiah … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9965 OF 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the District Collector, Nellore, issued in Proceedings No.Rc.E.453/2005, dt.20.10.2005 in confirming the order of the Joint Collector, Nellore, issued in proceedings No.D.Dis.(E)695/2002 dt.5.8.2002, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner – fair price shop dealer. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Pellur Village, Chejerla Mandal in Nellore District. He was also in-charge of fair price shop of Pullaneellapalli Village. Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dt.31.12.2001 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Mainly it was the allegation against the petitioner that he has drawn 28.487 metric tones of rice meant for food for work programme, from MLS point, Podalakur, but when an inspection was made it was noticed that only a quantity of 11.8 MTs of rice was found in the rooms and the petitioner misused the remaining rice of 16.697 MTs. A show cause notice dt.4.2.2002 was issued by the primary authority, i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nellore, for which a detailed explanation was filed by the petitioner on 7.2.2002. After inspection of the premises of the petitioner on 31.12.2001, a further inspection was made on 19.1.2002 to verify the stock position and another report was also sent by the Mandal Revenue Officer. By considering the explanation of the petitioner, the RDO has passed the final order dt.8.3.2002 in proceeding No.Rc.C.84/2002, restoring the authorization of the petitioner by imposing penalty of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). As against the said order of the RDO, the Joint Collector has taken up review suo motu and passed the order dt.5.8.2002 in proceedings No.D.Dis (E)695/2002 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. When the stocks, which were drawn by the petitioner under food for work programme, were being verified it was stated by him that the stocks were stored in two rooms in the premises of a temple by name, Venkaiah Swamy Temple, Pullaneellapalli. Second respondent – Joint Collector has expressed some doubts with regard to the verification process adopted to know the availability of quantity of the rice in the premises of the temple and passed the impugned order cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner carried the matter to the District Collector by way of revision and the same was also rejected by the impugned order dt.20.10.2005 confirming the order of cancellation. At the stage of admission, this Court has granted interim order dt.23.5.2006 suspending the impugned orders of cancellation of authorization of the petitioner and it is stated that the petitioner is being continued as a dealer. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no authority or jurisdiction conferred on the Joint Collector to suo motu review the order passed by the RDO as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (for short, ‘the Control Order’) which order was in force during the relevant time. It is the further case of the petitioner that except the notice of hearing, he was not given an opportunity by conveying the grounds for the proposed review by the Joint Collector. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that when the inspection was being made in the temple premises, after opening of one room the petitioner absconded and there was no reason for not opening the second room by breaking open the lock. It is submitted that in view of the serious allegations made against the petitioner, the review authority has invoked the power under Clause 3-A of the Control Order and reviewed the order of the RDO and cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Before I deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, I deem it appropriate to refer to the provisions under Clause 3-A of the Control Order, which read as under: “3-A. Suo motu riview:- The Chief Rationing Officer in respect of Hyderabad city or the District Collector elsewhere may either suo motu or on an application may call for and examine the records under Clause 3 of this order relating to any order passed under Sub- Clause (2) or (4) for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety or adequacy of the punishment imposed and for reasons to be recorded in writing, add to, amend, revise or annual the orders passed by the appointing authority. Before passing final orders under this clause, the Chief Rationing Officer, in respect of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and District Collector, elsewhere shall give the F.P. Shop dealer concerned an opportunity of making his representation and pass such order thereon as he may deem fit.” As per the above said provision, so far as the Districts are concerned, the District Collector is empowered to take up suo motu review for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality, propriety or adequacy of the punishment imposed and is empower to add to, amend, revise, or annul the orders passed by the appointing authority by recording reasons. It is also clear that before passing final order under this clause, the dealer has to be given an opportunity for making his representation on the review proceedings taken up by the concerned authority. From a reading of the above provision it is evident that only the District Collector is empowered to take up suo motu review under Section 3-A of the Control Order, which was in force at the relevant point of time. Hence, the review taken up by the Joint Collector is totally without jurisdiction. It is well settled that unless the power of review is conferred expressly on the authority, it cannot take up any proceedings to review the order. In the absence of any specific power on the Joint Collector and as the power under Clause 3-A of the Control Order confers only on the District Collector, the impugned order of the Joint Collector is without any jurisdiction. It is also to be noticed that Clause 3-A of the Control Order also provides an opportunity to the dealer to make a representation before an order is passed in a review proceeding. It is the specific case of the petitioner that except notice of hearing, he was not given opportunity by conveying the grounds for the review by the Joint Collector. When an authority is taking up a proceeding to review the earlier order, opportunity is to be given by way of a show cause notice indicating the grounds for reviewing the order. By issuing mere notice of hearing, no order can be passed reviewing the order passed by the primary authority. Such an action on the part of the Joint Collector is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the procedure contemplated under Clause 3A of the Control Order, itself. I have also perused the order passed by the revisional authority, the District Collector. The revisional authority also has not adverted to the specific grounds raised by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Joint Collector. Hence, the impugned orders of the Collector and the Joint Collector are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Order of the Joint Collector dt.5.8.2002 issued in proceedings No.D.Dis. (E)695/2002, and the order of the District Collector dt.20.10.2005 passed in proceedings Rc.E.453/2005 confirming the order of the Joint Collector, are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27.9.2011 bnr