THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10621 OF 2007 DATED 24th JUNE, 2011 Between: Kumari Ponnada Kamala … Petitioner and The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, And others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10621 OF 2007 O R D E R The petitioner, the fair price shop dealer of Chinnalankam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District, challenges the proceedings dated 14.03.2005 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, cancelling her authorization and the subsequent proceedings dated 16.09.2006 and 08.03.2007 of the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam, and the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam, respectively, confirming the same in appeal and thereafter, in revision. This Court, by order dated 16.05.2007, while admitting the writ petition directed that no substitute arrangement should be made on a permanent basis in the place of the petitioner. The main allegation on the basis of which the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled was that she had misutilized forty quintals of rice allotted for ‘Food for Work’ programme. The petitioner however stated that the allotted rice was distributed amongst the beneficiaries upon presentation of coupons and after making necessary entries in the distribution register. The coupons and the distribution register were produced by her before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. This aspect stands confirmed by the Collector, Srikakulam, in his counter filed in this writ petition. In spite of the same, no enquiry was conducted into the matter to ascertain the truth of the petitioner’s defence. Instead, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, baldly concluded that the petitioner had produced bogus coupons and proceeded to cancel her authorization. Once the petitioner came up with a defence duly supported by record, it was for the authorities to institute an enquiry into the matter to ascertain the truth. The failure on the part of the primary authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, in doing so therefore demonstrates a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of a learned Division Bench of this Court in S.MALLA REDDY V/s. M.VIJAYALAKSHMI[1], wherein it was observed that a dealership could not be cancelled without following the principles of natural justice, which would include issuance of a show cause notice calling upon the fair price shop dealer to submit his/her explanation and then holding an enquiry and passing appropriate orders after hearing the fair price shop dealer. In the present case, having complied with the requirements of issuing a show cause notice and calling for an explanation, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, did not deem it fit or necessary to hold an enquiry into the matter in spite of production of material evidence by the petitioner in support of her defence. The prejudice caused to the petitioner owing to this approach is manifest. The appellate and revisional authorities unfortunately did not consider the matter in the proper perspective and blindly confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. The cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization being in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot therefore be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings passed by the primary, appellate and revisional authorities holding to that effect. Miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 24th JUNE, 2011 PGS/VGSR [1] 2005 (3) ALT 100 (DB)