THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 13th August 2009 WRIT APPEAL NO.2051 of 2002 Between: T.Seena Reddy, S/o.T.Narasimha Reddy, 68 years, Fair Price Shop Dealer of Nennur, S/o.Nennur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. …APPELLANT AND 1. The District Collector, Chittoor. And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.2051 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Even though this matter came up yesterday and today, none appears nor there is any representation on behalf of the respondents. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that he is a Fair Price Shop Dealer. He sought for renewal of authorisation in the year 1996. The same was not renewed and instead, it was cancelled on the ground that the application is without date and that the original authorisation is not produced. The case of the petitioner is that the original authorisation is in custody of the Mandal Revenue Officer and therefore, he could not produce the same. Further, merely because no date is mentioned on the application, it cannot be rejected. The learned Single Judge also did not find favour with the petitioner and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the appeal. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and on perusal of the material available on record, it is quite apparent that in view of the Circular in Roc.No.A4/22/91 dated 16.10.1991 issued by the Government and the fact that the original authorisation is in the custody of the Mandal Revenue Officer not being denied, there is nothing on record to show that the said statement is false. In view of the same, the ground on which the authorisation sought to be refused for the purpose of renewal is misconceived. Even otherwise, if the date is mentioned, the appellant’s case has to be considered for review. Except the reason of not mentioning the date on the application, no other reason is forthcoming for cancelling the appellant’s authorisation. In the circumstances, the impugned order is totally unsustainable. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.04.2002 and cancellation order dated 09.02.1996 are set aside directing the second respondent herein to consider the case of the appellant herein for renewal of his authorisation and issue orders in accordance with law. No costs. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 13th August 2009 RRB