IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4009 of 2008 Between: Kasa Satyanarayana ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4009 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 16.02.2008 issued by respondent No.1, whereby she set aside notification dated 22.01.2008 and order of appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. Heard Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Civil Supplies. In pursuance of notification dated 22.01.2008, issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner applied for fair price shop dealership of Appareddipally village, Madgul Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. After conducting interviews, the petitioner was selected and appointed as fair price ship dealer. Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order purporting to quash the notification issued by respondent No.2 along with two other notifications and also the proceedings of respondent No.2, whereby he appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed at the behest of the local politicians as their candidates were not selected as fair price shop dealers, and that therefore, the same is wholly mala fide. He also submitted that the order, by which the notification and the appointment of the petitioner were cancelled, is not preceded by any notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Asst.Govt.Pleader, on instructions, stated that the record does not reveal that any notice was issued by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for civil supplies, I am of the considered view that the order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law. The law is well settled that any action, which would result in causing serious and adverse civil consequences, shall be preceded by a notice and opportunity of hearing. (See State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi and others[1], Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India[2], Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India[3], and Rajesh Kumar vs. Dy.CIT[4]). In view of the admitted fact that no such notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed, without going into the allegations of mala fides raised by the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner is given liberty to raise these allegations if and when necessary in future proceedings. Order dated 16.02.2008 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue notices to the petitioner and others who are likely to be affected and give them an opportunity of hearing. She shall also pass a reasoned order thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner and similarly placed persons. Respondent No.1 shall complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from today. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 03.03.2008 Dsr [1] AIR 1967 SC 1269 [2] AIR 1978 SC 597 [3] AIR 1981 SC 818 [4] (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 181