THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24828 of 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning order, dated 21.11.2006 passed in Rc.No.225/2006-B by the respondent - Tahsildar, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. In view of expiry of regular dealer for distribution of kerosene to the cardholders of Vootapalli Village, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary dealer. On certain allegations made by the President of Vootapalli Village Panchayat and other village elders that the petitioner is distributing kerosene oil with less quantity, against the norms prescribed and is an arrogant man, the respondent got enquired into the same through the Mandal Revenue Inspector-II of Merakamudidam, and passed the impugned order cancelling his authorisation to run the fair price shop. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without issuing any notice and giving any opportunity to him. On the aforesaid plea of the petitioner, this Court by way of interim order, dated 28.11.2006, suspended the impugned order. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent that the petitioner is being continued in view of the interim order passed by this Court and no permanent arrangement is made for distribution of kerosene to the cardholders of Vootapalli Village. In this case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner is a temporary dealer. He has no right as such but when the allegations are levelled against him, no order should have been passed cancelling the authorization granted to him merely based on a report obtained from the Mandal Revenue Inspector-II. As much as it is not a termination of dealership simplicitor and when the accusations are made against the petitioner, the respondent ought to have given an opportunity to him before passing the order of cancellation. Further, though the petitioner raised a specific plea that he has not been given any notice or opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, there is no counter-affidavit filed by the respondent controverting the same. Even from a perusal of the impugned order, there is no indication of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the same. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that as the petitioner is only a temporary dealer, it is open to the respondent to make arrangement on permanent basis for distribution of kerosene to the cardholders of Vootapalli Village of Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Till such arrangement is made, the petitioner is to be continued as a temporary dealer on the appointment order issued to him. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni