IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 816 of 2008 Between: J.Prasanna, W/o.Suresh Reddy, R/o.Magandalapalle(V), Pungunur(M)Chittoor Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Chittoor,Chittoor Dist 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle,Chittoor Dist 3 V.Manujula, W/o.Prabhakar, Donbosco English,Medium School, R/o.Narasahepet, Gajulaveedhi, Pungunur,Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondent No.3: MRS. P. RADHIKA. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 05.11.2007 passed by respondent No.1 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.2 appointing respondent No.3 as fair price shop dealer of Magandlapalle Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. In pursuance of issuing of notification by respondent No.2 for appointing a fair price shop dealer in respect of the above mentioned Village, the petitioner and respondent No.3 applied and by order, dated 13.06.2007, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.3 as the fair price shop dealer. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 questioning the said order. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal. A perusal of the order shows that the petitioner inter alia raised the ground that respondent No.3 is an employee in DONBOSCO English Medium School and is a permanent resident of Punganur town. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondent No.3 not being the native of Magandlapalle Village, for which the fair price shop is notified, is not eligible to be appointed as fair price shop dealer. Respondent No.1 has not dealt with the said contention and thereby dismissed the appeal and it is apt to extract the operative portion of the said order: “Heard the arguments and perused the records placed before me. On perusal it is observed that the appointment of Smt. V.Manjula W/o Prabhakar by appointing authority of FP shops i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle is in order & agree with and confirm orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle in appointing Smt. V.Manjula as FP shop dealer at Magandlapalle village of Punganur. A Revision against this order lies to the District Collector within 30 days from the date of this order.” Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Smt.P.Radhika, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, I am of the view that the order of respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law. Assigning of reasons is an integral part of principles of natural justice. A duty is cast on every judicial or quasi judicial authority to give reasons in support of the final outcome, so that the aggrieved person will be able to know the grounds on which his claim was disallowed and the Superior Court examining such an order will appreciate its correctness or otherwise. (See Cyril Lasrado v. Juliana Maria Lasrado[1], State of West Bengal v. Alpana Ray[2] and Vishnudev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh [3] ) From the order extracted above, it is clear that it is bereft of any reasons whatsoever and respondent No.1 failed to apply his mind in agreeing with the view taken by respondent No.2 in selecting respondent No.3. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.1 does not stand the scrutiny of the Court and is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing both parties. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th APRIL, 2008 kvni [1] (2004) 7 SCC 431 [2] (2005) 7 SCJ 422 [3] (2008) 3 SCC 172