THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26874 of 2010 DT.24.01.2011 Between: Tayyaba Begum … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 07.10.2010, in proceedings No.A1/2320/2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. I have heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.24 of Ibrahimpet Village, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. The Tahsildar, Banswada vide his letter, dated 08.09.2010, reported that though the fair price shop authorization stands in the name of the petitioner, the shop is being run by her father and that she is not residing in the village, in which, the fair price shop is located due to her marriage. Following the same, respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice, dated 15.09.2010, to which, the petitioner submitted her explanation, stating that as she was married three months ago, she was presently residing at her father’s house at Ibrahimpet. Respondent No.3 by the impugned order has rejected the said explanation by observing that the same was not convincing and cancelled her authorisation. The question whether the petitioner has shifted her residence after her marriage or not falls within the realm of disputed question of fact. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to embark upon the adjudication of such a disputed question and render a finding thereon. However, I find a serious lacuna in the impugned order, inasmuch as with a cryptic observation that the petitioner’s explanation is not convincing, respondent No.2 has cancelled the authorization. Unless respondent No.2 has proper material to show that the petitioner has shifted her residence, he could not straight away come to such a conclusion merely on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for considering the case afresh. The petitioner is permitted to produce the material, if any, in respect of her plea that she continues to reside in the village where the fair price shop is located. On consideration of such material, if any, respondent No.2 shall pass an appropriate order, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date:24.01.2011 VGB