IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15491 of 2010 Between: K. Revappa ..... Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri P. Krishna Reddy for Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15491 of 2010 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. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer for Mansurpur fair price shop, Narayankhed Mandal, Medak District by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 16.04.2010. Questioning the said order, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Through his order dated 17.06.2010, respondent No.2 has allowed the said appeal by setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed to re-notify the shop afresh. This order is assailed in this Writ Petition on the main ground that before passing the same, the petitioner was not given a notice and an opportunity of being heard. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has not denied the petitioner’s averment that respondent No.2 has not given him a notice and opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. Apart from the fact that respondent Nos.1 to 3 failed to file a counter affidavit denying the said allegation, even a perusal of the impugned order does not show that such a notice was issued before setting aside the order of appointment. Therefore, from these facts, I am convinced that the order passed by respondent No.2 is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the same is accordingly liable to be set aside. For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. The appeal filed by respondent No.4 stands restored to the file of respondent No.2 who shall decide the appeal afresh, after giving notices to and hearing the petitioner and respondent No.4. The appeal shall be disposed of by respondent No.2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.19510 of 2010 and WVMP.No.2998 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.11.2010 ES