IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5197 of 2008 Between: Smt. K.Kavitha W/o. Karrunakar Reddy R/o. Desaipalli Village, H/o. Yamki Dowlathabad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, at MAhaboobnagar. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahboobnagar District, 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dowlathabad Mandal, Dowlathabad, Mahboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.GOVERDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 05-12-2006 issued by respondent No.2 and confirmed by proceedings dated 14-02-2008 of respondent No.1. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Yamki Village. She got married in the month of June, 2006, with one Karunakar Reddy, who, admittedly, is resident of a different village. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 31-07-2006, wherein the petitioner was called upon to explain why the fair price shop authorization standing in her name shall not be terminated as she was not residing in the said Yamki Village, for which the fair price shop was meant. After considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, respondent cancelled the petitioner’s authorization by his order dated 23- 10-2006. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed appeal before respondent No.1, who by her order dated 14-02-2008 dismissed the said appeal by confirming the order of respondent No.2. Questioning the said two orders, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard Sri K.Govardhan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 shows that on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Doultabad, that the petitioner left the village concerned after her marriage, authorization of the petitioner was cancelled. The order of respondent No.2 does not contain detailed reasons, but however, respondent No.1, while confirming the order of respondent No.2, considered the petitioner’s case at some length. She gave a finding that since the petitioner admitted that she got married with a person, who is a resident of Peddapuram of Maddur Village, and that her husband Sri Karunakar Reddy is cultivating agricultural land situated at Peddapuram, it was reasonable to presume that the petitioner is not living in the said Yamki Village. She also reasoned that mere fact that the petitioner was cultivating one acre of land situated in Yamki village gifted by her grand father, cannot be a ground to prove that she is residing in Yamki village. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both respondents 1 and 2 failed to consider the resident certificate dated 01-09-2006 issued by the Sarpanch of Yamki Village. He also stated that though the petitioner applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer of Doultabad Mandal to issue a certificate in her favour to the effect that she is a resident of Yamki Village even after her marriage, he has not taken any decision thereon and therefore, the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of proving her case. From a perusal of the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, I am satisfied that the certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Yamki village, said to have been produced by the petitioner before them, was not considered. The question whether the petitioner continued to be the resident of Yamki Village even after her wedding is required to be conclusively determined with reference to the evidence. Since the petitioner has an effective remedy of filing a revision against the impugned orders before the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, under Clause (21) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, I am not inclined to go into this disputed question. The petitioner is permitted to file a revision before the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, within two weeks from today She is also permitted to file additional documents, if any, in support of her contention that she is continuing to reside in Yamki Village even after her marriage. On receipt of such revision petition, the District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, shall dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Till the disposal of the revision petition, the petitioner shall be continued as fair price shop dealer of Yamki Village. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.6741 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 13-03-2008 LUR