HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21975 of 2008 Date : 07.09.2011 Between : Bashabathini Rama Devi. …..Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21975 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1509, situated in Kothula Naduma village of Elkathurthi Mandal in Karimnagar District. In this writ petition, she has questioned the order, dated 2nd of August 2008, passed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, in Proceedings No.A/3397/2008, cancelling her authorization on the ground that she is not residing in Kothula Naduma village, but is residing in Suraram village, after her marriage with one Vemula Sampath. The impugned order is questioned mainly on the ground that it was passed in violation of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. It is contended that as per the provisions of the said Control Order, unless the authorized dealer is given the opportunity of hearing, the 1st respondent is not competent to pass the order of cancellation unilaterally. At the time of admission, this Court granted interim order, on 30.09.2008, suspending the impugned proceedings and the said order continued all along. Though the writ petition is of 2008, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, controverting the allegation made by the petitioner that she was not issued with any notice before passing the impugned order. I have also perused the impugned order, in which, there is no indication of issuing any notice and there is also no reference to any such notice. On this short ground that the impugned order is not preceded by any notice and it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 2nd of August 2008, passed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, in Proceedings No.A/3397/2008, is set aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents from taking steps in accordance with law, by issuing a fresh notice and conducting inquiry into the allegation levelled against the petitioner. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th September 2011 ajr