IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17738 of 2006 Between: Ch. Ramadevi … Petitioner AND The Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri I. Gopala Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17738 of 2006 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed questioning order dated 24.04.2006 of respondent No.1 to the extent he directed alternate arrangements to be made for distribution of essential commodities, pending enquiry by respondent No.2. The fair price shop authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No.2 by order dated 06.03.2006. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1. The said appeal was disposed of by his order dated 24.04.2006. In his order respondent No.1 found that respondent No.2 has not summoned the card holders, whose names were subjected to double entries and that an opportunity was required to be afforded to the petitioner before passing final orders. On that reasoning, respondent No.1 stayed the operation of order dated 06.03.2006 and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for denovo enquiry to be concluded within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. While so doing, respondent No.1, however, directed that in the interest of smooth functioning of public distribution system, alternate arrangements to be made by keeping a valid authorization holder/appointee as in-charge. The grievance of the petitioner is that having found the defect in the enquiry held by respondent No.2 and that petitioner is required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing, respondent No.1 is not justified in directing making of alternate arrangements for distribution of essential commodities, instead of permitting the petitioner to continue as the dealer. I am inclined to accept this plea of the petitioner. Having found that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity and respondent No.2 had not held enquiry properly, respondent No.1 ought to have completely set aside the order of respondent No.2. Instead, while purporting to stay the order of cancellation, he directed alternate arrangements to be made. The logical consequences of staying order of cancellation of respondent No.2 would be that the petitioner’s authorization stands revived. In this view of the matter, the order of respondent No.1 to the extent it directed respondent No.2 to make alternate arrangements till the conclusion of enquiry is set aside. The petitioner shall be continued to function as the fair price shop dealer till conclusion of the enquiry by respondent No.2. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.22255 of 2006 and WVMP.No.934 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.04.2008 ES