IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.10889 of 2006 Between: P.Dayamani. … Petitioner And District Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District, Ongole and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri I.Koti Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies for R.1 to R.3. None for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Kantamvaripalli village, Chinnarlipadu Panchayat, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam district. On the basis of a report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanigiri, respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice dated 13-10-2004. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.3 suspended the petitioner’s authorization. On the basis of the orders passed by this Court, the said order was not given effect to. After issuing a fresh notice and receiving explanation dated 9-7-2005 from the petitioner, enquiry into five charges was held. The substance of these charges is that the petitioner is not distributing essential commodities in time and thereby causing inconvenience to the cardholders; she was selling commodities at rates higher than those fixed by the Government; she was behaving adamantly with the cardholders; she failed to submit her explanation to the notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanigiri; and she failed to distribute 35 Kgs., of rice to each of the AAY cardholders and instead distributed only 25 Kgs., to them. By order dated 9-8-2005 respondent No.3 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before respondent No.2 questioning the said order of respondent No.3. The appeal was allowed by respondent No.2 by order dated 23-9-2005 on the ground that respondent No.3 did not afford the petitioner proper opportunity and that a perusal of the record shows that the allegations made against her were not proved. Respondent No.4, who was evidently a cardholder, filed a revision before respondent No.2. The said revision was allowed by order dated 6-5-2006 wherein respondent No.1 held that respondent No.3 conducted enquiry into the irregularities against the petitioner, due opportunity was given to her for hearing and, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3 ought not to have been interfered with by respondent No.2. Questioning this order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. None appeared for respondent No.4, in spite of service of notice. A perusal of order dated 9-8-2005 passed by respondent No.3 shows that in reply to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner submitted his explanation, wherein she stated that she has already submitted her explanation on 24-8-2004 to the notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanigiri, on 9-8-2004 and she enclosed a xerox copy of the said explanation. However, respondent No.3, in his order observed that report dated 15-8-2004 submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanigiri, shows that the petitioner failed to submit her explanation to his notice and, therefore, it is not possible to accept the petitioner’s plea that she has already submitted her explanation. In the opinion of this Court, this reasoning of respondent No.3 is wholly untenable. Even assuming that the petitioner has not submitted her explanation to the Mandal Revenue Officer, on respondent No.3’s own showing the petitioner enclosed a copy of the explanation said to have been submitted by her to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanigiri. Therefore, nothing prevented respondent No.3 from considering the explanation of the petitioner submitted to him. Respondent No.2, therefore, rightly held that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner by respondent No.3. Without considering this crucial aspect, respondent No.1 mechanically held that respondent No.3 has given proper opportunity. The order of respondent No.1, therefore, suffers from complete non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As regards the order of respondent No.2, I find that the same suffers from a legal lacuna. Having held that respondent No.3 has not given the petitioner proper opportunity, it was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to remand the case to respondent No.3 for holding a fresh enquiry. This has not been done by respondent No.2. Therefore, while setting aside order dated 6-5-2006 of respondent No.1, the matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 for holding a full-fledged enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner, in which the petitioner should be given full opportunity of explaining the allegations made against her and pass appropriate orders after completing the enquiry. Pending such enquiry, the petitioner shall be continued as a fair price shop dealer. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-6-2009 MNR