HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1974 of 2004 Date: December 16, 2009 Between: Posamsetti Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Marraju, Hindu, Male, aged 22 years, R/o. Surappagudem, Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And The Disrict Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, and two others. … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed by a fair-price shop dealer appointed for shop No.5 of Surappagudem, Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari District, aggrieved by the order dated 05-07-2003 passed by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, in proceedings Roc.CS-1/22/Appeal/2002, allowing the appeal filed by the third respondent and further the order dated 12-01-2004 passed by the District Collector, West Godavari, in proceedings Roc.CS-1/4/Revision/2003, dismissing the revision petition filed by him. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, has notified for appointment of dealer for the aforesaid fair-price shop and pursuant to such notification, the petitioner and the third respondent were the applicants. After following necessary procedure, the Revenue Divisional Officer selected the petitioner and appointed him as a dealer for the said fair-price shop. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred appeal before the Joint Collector. It was the contention of the third respondent that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Sureppagudem; as such, his appointment is illegal. The Joint Collector, without issuing notice to the petitioner, allowed the said appeal by order dated 05-07-2003 and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, to issue fresh notification and fill up the vacancy. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed revision petition before the District Collector, West Godavari. In the grounds of revision, a specific stand is taken by the petitioner that he has not received the notice of appeal filed by the third respondent before orders are passed by the Joint Collector. Though such ground raised by the petitioner is stated in the order passed by the District Collector, but, without recording any finding on the said ground, the District collector rejected the revision petition, confirming the order of the Joint Collector. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a resident of Surappagudem village and there is a certification to that effect by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, having verified the residence of the petitioner, selected him as a fair-price shop dealer for that village. It is stated that when the appointment of the petitioner is challenged by way of appeal by the third respondent before the Joint Collector, the said authority should have issued notice to the petitioner before deciding the appeal. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, this court, by way of interim order, directed the respondents to continue the arrangement existing as on that day and further directed not to make any fresh appointment. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Though a counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent, the allegation of the petitioner, that he has not been served notice before deciding the appeal, is not answered. 5. I have perused the orders passed by the Joint Collector as well as the District Collector. In the order passed by the Joint Collector-appellate authority, there is no reference of issuance of any notice before the same is passed. It appears, after passing of the order, the same is ordered to be communicated to the petitioner. Further, though a specific ground is raised before the District Collector that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the appellate authority, but, a perusal of the order passed by the District Collector would reveal that there is no finding recorded on the said plea of the petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances and also in the absence of any counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, I deem, it is evidently a fit case to set aside the orders passed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority and remit the matter for fresh consideration by the second respondent-Joint Collector. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 05-07-2003 passed by the Joint Collector, West Godavari, and further the order dated 12-01-2004 passed by the District Collector, West Godavari, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent-Joint Collector for fresh consideration of the appeal filed by the third respondent. It is needless to observe that the second respondent-Joint Collector shall take-up the matter after issuing notice and opportunity to the petitioner and the third respondent and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Until disposal of the appeal afresh, the arrangement, which exists as on today, with regard to the fair-price shop in question shall be continued. 8. The writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 16, 2009 MRR