IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 19249 of 2003 Between: B.Seethanna, S/o.Venkatappa, Gurramkonda Village & Mandal Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor District. 3 The Sub-Collector, Madanapalli, 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in L.Dis(S1) 668/03 dt.3.9.2003 of the 1st respondent in confirming the order of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in D.Dis(S1) 310/03 dt.31.3.2003 and Roc.No.A3/1987/02, dt.28.2.003 respectively, without assigning any reason, as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MANJUNATH ALLUR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.19249 OF 2003 O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.2 of Gurramkonda village and Mandal, Chittoor District. While so, a show cause notice was issued, framing the following three charges calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the dealership shall not be cancelled:- CHARGE No.1:- The dealer has abruptly closed the shop without prior permission of the appointing authority from December, 2001, thereby contravened Clause 16(2) of the AP Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order,1973. CHARGE No.2:- The dealer stopped supplying scheduled commodities to the cardholders allotted to his shop without giving (30) days previous notice to the appointing authority from December, 2001 thereby contravened Clause 16(3) of the AP Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973. CHARGE No,3:- The dealer is identified as regular defaulter because he failed to remit the DDs in time on several previous occasions and he was issued a show cause notice No.A3/1656/01 thereby violated condition 11 and 13 of the AP Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to all the charges in the show cause notice dated 3-6-2002 on 7-2-2003. The Sub Collector, Madanapalle without dealing with any of the contentions raised in the explanation, based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, came to the conclusion that as the petitioner was not financially sound, he could not make remittance of the Demand Drafts within the prescribed time for the Month of December, 2001. It is stated that the financial position of the petitioner is not sound and accordingly cancelled the authorization. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the appellate authority by order dated 31-03-2003 dismissed the appeal without dealing with any of the contentions. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Collector, Chittoor and the Collector by the impugned order dated 3-09-2003 rejected the vision on the ground that the revision is barred by time. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the appellate authority dated 31-3-2003 was only furnished to the petitioner on 4-7-2003 and revision has been filed on 15-7-2003 within the prescribed time, but the revisional authority taking into consideration the date of order of the appellate authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as barred by time. It is stated that the limitation starts from the date of furnishing copy, but not from the date of passing the order. The said averment made in the writ affidavit has not been contravened and no counter has been filed, therefore, it cannot be said that the revision filed by the petitioner after obtaining the copy of order of the Joint Collector dated 31-3-2003 on 4-7- 2003 is barred by time and the revision was admittedly filed on 15-7-2003. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the revisional authority dated 3-9-2003 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the revision on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 10.06.2008 Shr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor District. 3 The Sub-Collector, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 4.2CCs to 5.2CD copies