THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23817 OF 2008 DATED 29TH JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN B.Lakshmipathi …Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23817 OF 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Thoompayanapalle Village, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District, challenges the cancellation of his authorization by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, under proceedings dated 24.09.2007 and the subsequent orders dated 31.12.2007 and 30.08.2008 passed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor, and the District Collector, Chittoor, respectively, confirming the same in appeal and thereafter in revision. The cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization was based on the six charges levelled against him in the show cause notice dated 13.07.2007. The primary authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, held that all the charges were duly proved and accordingly cancelled the petitioner’s authorization under proceedings dated 24.09.2007. The same stood confirmed in appeal and thereafter in revision. This Court, by order dated 03.11.2008, while admitting the writ petition directed the respondents not to make any permanent appointment in respect of the subject fair price shop. Sri T.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the cancellation of his client’s authorization was liable to be set aside on the short ground that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. The learned counsel contended that no enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, and no card holder was examined in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Pertinent to note, charge 3 of the show cause notice dated 13.07.2007, which was held duly proved, related to the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner in issuing stocks to the 13 card holders named therein who were said to have made complaints against him. The findings on charges 1, 2 and 6 are also based on the statements of some cardholders. However, there is no indication that the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the said card holders. The prejudice caused to the petitioner in defending his case effectively, owing to this denial, is manifest [M.SADASIVA SEKHAR V/s. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL[1]]. Unless the authorities afford a reasonable opportunity to the dealer to defend his case, which would include not only the issuance of a detailed show cause notice calling for an explanation but also holding an enquiry thereafter, duly allowing the dealer to participate therein and affording him an opportunity of cross-examining those who adduced evidence against him, he would be denied the chance of putting forth an effective defence, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The present writ petition is a case in point. Once the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, proposed to take action against the petitioner/dealer based on the complaints received from specific card holders it was incumbent upon him to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization therefore suffers from violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. The appellate and revisionary authorities’ orders confirming the same also stand vitiated consequently. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Thoompayanapalle Village, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District. Miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. Parties shall bear their own costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 29TH JUNE, 2011. PGS/VGSR [1] 2003 (2) ALD 843