HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.16251 of 2009 Date: November 25, 2011 Between: Meda Suresh, S/o.Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur and another … Respondents Order: Petitioner questions the order dated 15.06.2009 passed in proceedings Rc.No.155/08-B, by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur. By the said order, the 1st respondent-RDO has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District. When vacancy of dealer for the fair price shop of Siripuram village arose, 11 candidates have applied including the petitioner. Basing on the performance of the petitioner in the interview and considering all other relevant aspects, order dated 25.02.2009 was passed appointing him as dealer for the said fair price shop and in the appointment order, it is stated that authorisation will be issued subject to receipt of antecedents from the Tahsildar, Medikonduru. After issuance of the order dated 25.02.2009, the 2nd respondent herein, who was one of the applicants, made a representation to the 1st respondent-RDO stating that the petitioner is studying B.Com, in Career Degree College, Guntur; in that view of the matter, his appointment is illegal. Based on such representation and also referring to a report obtained from the Tahsildar, Medikonduru Mandal, the 1st respondent-RDO has passed the impugned order canceling the earlier order appointing the petitioner as dealer. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without issuing any notice to him and the 1st respondent-RDO is not empowered to pass the same, by setting aside the earlier order appointing him as dealer for the fair price shop of Siripuram village. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ground as mentioned in the impugned order for canceling his appointment, i.e. he was studying 2nd year B.Com., in Career Degree College, Guntur, is not a valid ground and there is no such restriction in the A.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. it is further submitted that petitioner intended to discontinue studies in view of his appointment as dealer. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the 1st respondent that as on the date of interview, the petitioner was studying B.Com., and the same is evident from the T.C. obtained by him from Career Degree College, Guntur; hence his appointment itself is illegal and therefore the impugned order is passed canceling his appointment. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order dated 25.02.2009 appointing the petitioner as dealer for the fair price shop of Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District and also the impugned order dated 15.06.2009 cancelling such appointment. In the order dated 25.02.2009, it is clearly recorded that the petitioner has fared well in the interview and is a suitable candidate for appointment as fair price shop dealer. It is further stated that that authorisation will be issued subject to receipt of antecedents report from the Tahsildar. Merely because the 2nd respondent has filed a representation stating that the petitioner was studying 2nd year B.Com, at the time of interview, the 1st respondent-RDO should not have cancelled the appointment of the petitioner unilaterally, merely relying on the said representation, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The said action is not only illegal but is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. On that ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. There is yet another ground to set aside the impugned order. May be that the petitioner, with an intention to discontinue his studies, has applied for the post of dealer and thus obtained T.C. from the college. In the absence of contravention of any provision under the Control Order, the ground mentioned in the impugned order, viz., the petitioner was studying 2nd year B.Com., is no valid ground to set aside the earlier order appointing him as dealer. Further, the order dated 25.02.2009 and also the impugned order are passed by the very same authority, i.e. the 1st respondent- RDO. It is fairly well settled that unless the power of review is expressly conferred, an authority cannot review its own order. In absence of any such express provision for review in the Control Order, which governs appointments to fair price shops, the 1st respondent-RDO could not have reviewed his own order, merely based on the representation filed by one of the unsuccessful candidates. Further, it is also stated that pursuant to interim directions, authorisation is granted to the petitioner and is being continued. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 15.06.2009 passed in proceedings Rc.No.155/08-B, by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, is set aside. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 25, 2011 MRR