HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14553 of 2009 Date : 09.12.2011 Between : K. Prabhakar. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, Medak District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14553 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order, dated 21.03.2009, passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector in Case No.CSA/4/Rev/2008, confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.CSA/1/08, dated 21.07.2008, and the order passed by the 4th respondent in Proceedings No.B/127/2008, dated 23.01.2008, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Clause 5(4) of A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, and consequently set aside the order, dated 12.06.2009, passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings No.B2/261/2008. The petitioner is authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Togarpalli village of Kondapur Mandal in Medak District. On certain alleged irregularities, the authorization of petitioner was suspended pending inquiry, by order, dated 23.01.2008, passed by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar in Proceedings No.B/127/2008. Against the said order of suspension, the petitioner has filed appeal, which was dismissed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, and the revision preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent-District Collector has also ended in dismissal. In view of the same, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 12.06.2009, passed in Proceedings No.B2/261/08, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. Hence, this writ petition. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim suspension on 21.07.2009, by observing that the impugned orders are bereft of reasons and are passed without framing any charges against the petitioner. The said interim order continued all along and though the writ petition is of 2009, respondents did not choose to file counter affidavit. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings of cancellation, it is clear that no findings are recorded on the allegations made against the petitioner. This Court has granted interim suspension as early as on 21.07.2009 and the said order continued all along. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, by setting aside the impugned order of cancellation, dated 12.06.2009, with a direction to the respondents to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the order, dated 12.06.2009, passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings No.B2/261/ 2008, is set aside and the matter is remanded to him, with a direction to inquire into the allegations made against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th December 2011 rrb/ajr