THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1138 of 2002 DATED:17-08-2009 Between: Donthagani Jagadeshwari. … Appellant/petitioner. And The Joint Collector, Nalgonda District & 2 others. …Respondents. ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Appellant, who is the unsuccessful petitioner, seeks to assail the order of dismissal, dated 20-06-2002, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10987 of 2002, where he sought for a mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda in passing the order in appeal case No.CS6/2011/2002, dated 28-05- 2002, setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda in proceedings No.D/4165/2000, dated 27-11-2001, appointing the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer of Voilpalli village, Narayanpur mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal. 2. The grievance of the appellant in brief is that in the said appeal filed by the 3rd respondent the petitioner had no notice and therefore the said orders are one-sided and accordingly liable to be set aside. However, the learned single Judge did not find favour with the petitioner’s request and exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only on the ground that there is alternative remedy of revision as against the said order. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Pending this appeal, this Court granted interim direction on 06- 08-2002 suspending the said order of the appellate authority, dated 28-05-2002, and now it is represented that the appellant is continuing to grant proceedings under the said dealership. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the fact that admittedly the appellant had no notice and hence, the appeal was disposed of without his presence, it is considered that it is too late in the day to contend that even without following the order standing in favour of an individual, no order should be passed without giving a prior and proper opportunity. In the circumstances, we are of the view that instead of remitting to the revisional authority the matter can as well be taken up by the appellate authority afresh and dispose of the same after giving notice to the appellant. Accordingly, the order impugned, dated 28-05-2002, is set aside. Respondent No.1 shall give notice to the appellant herein and also the respondent No.3 and dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 17th August, 2009. Tsy