HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27912 of 2008 Date : 14.09.2011 Between : Vandana Satyam. …..Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponduru Mandal & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27912 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 18.12.2006, passed by the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer in Proceedings Rc.No.464/2008 (CS), cancelling the authorization granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, and the further order of the District Collector, Srikakulam, dated 22.11.2008, issued in D.Dis.No.524/2008-S2. The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Depot No.2 of Buridi Kancharam village in Ponduru Mandal of Srikakulam District. Referring to certain allegations, the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, by order dated 18.12.2006, has cancelled the authorization granted to the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Joint Collector. The appellate authority, by order dated 03.10.2007, issued in Proceedings D.Dis.No.374/2007-S2, allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner mainly on the ground that he was not given show cause notice and the primary authority has failed to follow the procedure as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to conduct inquiry afresh and pass appropriate orders as per the Control Order. As against the same, the 5th respondent, who is appointed as a temporary dealer in the place of the petitioner, carried the matter by way of revision before the District Collector. The District Collector, by further order dated 22.11.2008, issued in D.Dis.No.524/2008-S2, has set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector and confirmed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer issued in Rc.No.464/2008 (CS), dated 18.12.2008. In the impugned proceedings, he has further directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to fill up the vacancy for the shop in question as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2008. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity before passing the order of cancellation by the primary authority. On the aforesaid ground, when the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer is set aside by the Joint Collector vide his order dated 03.10.2007, no valid reason is recorded by the District Collector to interfere with the said order. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 that as much as the petitioner has indulged in serious irregularities by not supplying the essential commodities to the card holders in correct weighment and by charging excess rates to the cardholders, an inquiry was already conducted and appropriate orders will be passed. It is contended that in view of the findings recorded, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the District Collector. A perusal of the order, dated 18.12.2006, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer shows that there is no indication of giving any prior opportunity to the petitioner before cancelling his authorization. In fact, on the aforesaid ground, by recording a specific finding, the Joint Collector has allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by further directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct inquiry afresh and pass appropriate orders on the allegations made against the petitioner by following the procedure contemplated under A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. The said order is appealed against by the 5th respondent-temporary dealer and the District Collector, by order dated 22.11.2008, has allowed the revision filed by the 5th respondent, by recording a finding that the Joint Collector has set aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer only on technical ground that the petitioner was not issued with any notice before passing of order by the Mandal Revenue Officer, cancelling the authorization. As per the provisions of the Control Order, the authorized dealer is to be given an opportunity before passing the order of cancellation. In view of the specific finding recorded by the Joint Collector in the order dated 03.10.2007, while allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner that the petitioner was not given prior notice, there is no reason for interfering with the said order. When the Control Order specifically provides for giving an opportunity before passing the order of cancellation, same cannot be construed as a technical flaw, as recorded by the revisional authority. Though the petitioner has also questioned the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer in this writ petition, as the appellate authority has remanded the matter for fresh consideration, I am of the view that it is not necessary to examine the validity of the order, dated 18.12.2006, passed by the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the 4th respondent-District Collector, Srikakulam, dated 22.11.2008, passed in Proceedings D.Dis.No.524/2008- S2, is set aside, upholding the order of the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, dated 03.10.2007, passed in D.Dis.No.374/2007-S2. The 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer is directed to conduct appropriate inquiry in terms of the directions issued by the Joint Collector, in the order dated 03.10.2007, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. There shall be a further direction to the respondents that if the petitioner is continuing as dealer as on today, he shall be continued till appropriate final orders are passed in the matter. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th September 2011 ajr