IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17623 of 2008 Between: Ballipadu Bapi Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana, Brodipeta, Palakol Fair Price Shop Dealer Shop No.62, Lock Down, Palakol, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Civil Supply, Eluru, West Godvari District, 2 The Joint Collector, West Godvari District, Eluru, 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur, West Godvari District. 4 The Tahsildar Palakol, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari Dsitrict., .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order or the 3rd Respondent vide his proceedings No.568/2008(E), dated 14-06-2008 is arbitrary, bad and illegal and violation of procedure contemplated under A.P.S.P.D.S.Orders 2001 and violation of Articles 14 of Constitution of India consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as a Fair Price Shop Dealer Shop No.62 of Palakol Town Palakol Mandal, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KURITIBHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17623 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.62 of Palakol Town and Mandal and he has been running the said shop for the last more than 25 years and he has been distributing essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint whatsoever. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 10-03-2008, stating that the petitioner is not residing in the village and essential commodities are being distributed through one Konda Prasad on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly, he was asked to submit explanation as to why authorization should not be cancelled. Pursuant to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation, dated 20-03-2008, stating that he himself running the fair price shop for the last more than 25 years and the said Konda Prasad is not at all distributing essential commodities on his behalf. It is stated that without considering his explanation properly, behind the back of the petitioner, basing on the report said to have been obtained from the Tahsildhar, Palakol, dated 12-04-2008, that too without furnishing copy of the said report, authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by the 3rd respondent, through order, dated 14-06-2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with a stay application to suspend the operation of the order of the 3rd respondent, dated 14-06-2008. The 2nd respondent, through order, dated 22-07- 2008, rejected the stay application. Admittedly, the appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that the explanation filed by him was not considered properly and his authorization has been cancelled mainly on the report of the Tahsildar, Palakol, dated 12-04-2008, that too without furnishing copy of the said report and, therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. I am not inclined to express any opinion as to whether the petitioner himself has been distributing essential commodities or somebody else has been distributing on behalf of the petitioner and whether the petitioner is residing in the village or not, as all these matters are required to be enquired and considered by the appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not serious in nature and as there is no misappropriation of essential commodities, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to grant stay of operation of the impugned order, dated 14-06-2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 22-07-2008, in rejecting stay of operation of the impugned order, dated 14-06-2008, is set aside, by granting stay of operation of the impugned order, dated 14-06-2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the main appeal itself as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13-08-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}