IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25514 of 2008 Between: Smt. K. Geetha W/o. A. Laxmanna Parigi Mandal , Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Anantapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Punukonda, Anantapur District. 3 The Tahsildar, Parigi, Aanapur District. 4 Smt. Shakuntala W/o. Ashwatappa Kalvapalli Village, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. N.ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 12.11.2008 passed by respondent No.1 whereby he set aside the order of respondent No.2 appointing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Kalvapalli Village, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.4. By order, dated 30.08.2008, respondent No.2 appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of the above-mentioned Village. Respondent No.4, who was an unsuccessful applicant filed appeal before respondent No.1. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s appointment order was set aside and respondent No.2 was directed to fill up the vacancy after following the procedure. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner categorically averred that before setting aside her order of appointment, she was not given a notice and an opportunity of hearing by respondent No.1. Neither in the order passed by respondent No.1 nor in the counter-affidavit filed by him, he stated that notice was issued to the petitioner or her counsel was heard before passing the impugned order. Apart from the fact that no record is produced to show that an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, failure of respondent No.1 to deny the specific allegation of the petitioner that such an opportunity was denied to her, warrants a legal presumption that the petitioner was not given a notice and an opportunity of hearing before her appointment order was set aside by respondent No.1. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of respondent No.1 is set aside without going into the merits of the case. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh disposal after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.4. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd JULY, 2009. kvni