HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.28256 of 2010 Date : 15-11-2010 Between: Smt.Begari Lakshmi .. Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional officer, Sangareddy, Medak District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri N.Ashok Kumar Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order dated 8-10-2010 of respondent No.1 whereby he directed respondent No.4 to make alternative arrangement for distribution of commodities to card holders attached to fair price shop of Hanumantharaopet village, Narayankhed Mandal, Medak District. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of the above mentioned village. Her authorisation which has evidently expired on 31-3-2003 was not renewed. However, when show cause notice was issued on 7-7-2007 to show cause as to why her dealership shall not be terminated in view of non-renewal of the authorisation, the petitioner evidently applied for renewal. The respondents have continued supplies of essential commodities till the impugned communication has been sent by respondent No.1 to respondent No.4. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that under clause 5(11) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008, the validity of the authorisation shall not be deemed to have expired if an application for its renewal is pending before the appointing authority and that as the petitioner’s renewal application is pending with respondent No.1, the impugned communication cannot be sustained. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s application for renewal of authorisation was rejected in the year 2007 itself but the same was not communicated to the petitioner. This stand of the respondents cannot be appreciated because neither the factum of rejection of the petitioner’s application for renewal has been stated in the impugned order nor the rejection order has been communicated to the petitioner. Where an order having adverse consequences has been passed, it is obligatory on the part of the authority which passed such an order to communicate the same to the affected party. Unless such communication is received by the party, it cannot be said that such an order has come into effect. As admittedly, the purported rejection of the petitioner’s application for renewal has not been communicated to her, such an order cannot be treated as validly subsisting to deny the petitioner the right to function as the fair price shop dealer. In this view of the matter, the impugned proceedings are set- aside. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 are directed to continue the allotment of essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution. However, this order would not prevent respondent No.1 from communicating the order of rejection of the petitioner’s application. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such rejection, she is entitled to avail appropriate legal remedies available to her in law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. __________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 15-11-2010 Note : Furnish copy in two days. AM