The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.24853 of 2007 Dated 22nd June, 2010 Between: Smt.Shaik Rahmath Bee and 9 others …Petitioners And The Collector & District Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District and 4 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.D.Jagan Mohan Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Civil Supplies. Counsel for respondent No.5: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the Writ Petition. The petitioners are residents of Pamur Village and hold ration cards for drawing essential commodities from fair price shop No.3 of Pamuru Village and Mandal. Respondent No.5 is the fair price shop dealer of the said shop. While so, by Order, dated 07-01-2006 respondent No.3 cancelled the authorisation of respondent No.5 mainly on the ground that he permitted the shop to be run by a benami. A further finding was also recorded therein that there was variation of stock between the stock register, coupons and the ground stock. Respondent No.5 unsuccessfully questioned the said order before respondent No.2-appellate authority. Against the orders of the primary and the appellate authorities, respondent No.5 filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, who, by the impugned order, had set aside the orders of the primary and the appellate authorities. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No.1 has committed a serious error in not remanding the matter to the primary authority, having set aside the orders of both the primary and the appellate authorities on the short ground that the same were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent No.5. After hearing the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and perusing the impugned order passed by respondent No1, I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the only ground on which the orders, cancelling the authorisation of respondent No.5 and confirming the said cancellation order, were set aside was that the primary authority has not supplied the preliminary report, dated 06-10-2004, of the Tahsildar, Pamur Village & Mandal, to respondent No.5. That being so, respondent No.1 ought to have remanded the matter to respondent No.3, who is the primary authority, for fresh consideration after supplying a copy of the said report to respondent No.5. By not remanding the matter to respondent No.3, respondent No.1 has committed a serious irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent of the order of respondent No.1 in not remanding the matter to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. Respondent No.3 is directed to supply a copy of the Tahsildar’s report, dated 06-10-2004, to respondent No.5, consider the issue denovo and pass an appropriate order, after giving the petitioners and respondent No.5 an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd June, 2010 lur