IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO.12289 of 2008 Between: G. Bhaskaramma W/o. Thoyajakshi Reddy, R/o. Pathagunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the 1st respondent passed in Proceedings D. Dis.C1/2290/1997, dt. 24.02.2008, confirming the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, in proceedings No. D. Dis S1/733/97, dt. 15.05.1997, proceedings in D. Dis.B/5536/96, dt. 24.01.1997 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, void, contrary to law and against the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and further declare the impugned notification of the 3rd respondent in ROC B1/1266/2008, dt. Nil.05.2008 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and accordingly set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO.12289 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. The order of the first respondent dated 24.02.2008, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent dated 15.05.1997, whereby, the second respondent has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the third respondent dated 24.01.1997, is challenged in this Writ Petition. The third respondent, by the order dated 24.01.1997, granted authorization in favour of one Kum.G.Munirathnam for the Fair Shop of Pathagunta Village, Chittoor District. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, one of the unsuccessful applicants for grant of such authorization, preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent rejected the appeal by his order dated 15.05.1997. There against, the petitioner preferred a revision to the first respondent and the first respondent, by order dated 24.02.2008, rejected the revision. In the grounds of revision presented to the first respondent, the petitioner, inter alia, asserted that the selected candidate is not fit for the grant of authorization; that the petitioner has higher qualifications than the selected candidate, but was not favourably considered for extraneous reasons; and that she is married whereas the third respondent is an unmarried person, therefore, she ought to have been considered in preference to the other candidate. The singular contribution of the first respondent in the order dated 24.02.2008 reads as follows. “I have carefully examined the material facts of this case and the order of the lower Court. It is observed that the order of the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity.” The conclusion of the second respondent is not a reason but an ipse dixit. The earlier sentence that the first respondent has “carefully examined the material facts of this case and the order of the lower Court”, is a ritualistic expression of inanity. The first respondent is performing a quasi-judicial function and is obligated to record reasons for the decision. He is not expected to issue a fiat as though exercising a prerogative power. The revisional order of the first respondent is therefore perverse and unbecoming of a quasi-judicial authority. It is, accordingly, quashed. Since the decision of the first respondent set out in the order dated 24.02.2008 to reject the revision is perverse and records no reasons, this Court considers it appropriate to allow the Writ Petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) of which an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) shall be paid to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority. The A.P. State Legal Services Authority may consider, if feasible, holding continuing education programmes for quasi-judicial authorities in the State Service including for persons of the rank of the first respondent. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, for information. __________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 21st July 2008 RRB