IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 6662 of 2008 Between: K.Bhaskara Rao, S/o Bhushaiah, Occu: F.P. Shop Dealer, President Harijan Labour Contract Coop.Soiety Ltd., Sivarampuram village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole and 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6662 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.03.2007 passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector, Ongole in his order, dated 09.01.2008 and by the 1st respondent-District Collector, Prakasam dated 04.03.2008, by which the authorization given to the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled. The case of the petitioner is that he is the President of Harijan Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., Sivarampuram village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District and was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer and the authorization was issued in the capacity of President of Harijan Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited, in the year 1984, and that he has been distributing essential commodities to all the cardholders in the village, without any complaint. While so, on 20.02.2007, when he was going to Mandal Revenue Office to attend a meeting, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Darsi, intercepted him at the bus stand and took all the registers and coupons relating to his fair price shop. Pursuant to the report furnished by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Darsi, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 22.02.2007 calling for explanation of the petitioner on the ground that he has committed certain irregularities relating to distribution of essential commodities for the month of January, 2007. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 02.03.2007 denying all the charges leveled against him. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 06.03.2007 cancelling the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 20.03.2007 along with stay petition. However, the 2nd respondent dismissed the said appeal without assigning any reasons, on 09.01.2008. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition, on 21.01.2008, before the 1st respondent-District Collector and the same was dismissed on 04.03.2008. Hence the writ petition. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the origin for cancellation of authorization given to the fair price shop of the petitioner is the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar and on the basis of the said report only, the impugned order came to be passed. He submits that the petitioner has already asked for a copy of the said report in his explanation dated 02.03.2007 given to the show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent, but even then he was not given a copy of the report and the impugned order was passed behind his back without giving any opportunity to challenge the said report before the authorities who passed the impugned order and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is vitiated by not following the principles of natural justice. In this context, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M.KALYANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE AND OTHERS[1]. Per Contra, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that three charges were concurrently held against the petitioner and as such it is not a matter for interference. It is further submitted that the petitioner except making a statement in his explanation, he had never approached the authorities for obtaining a copy of the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar. The learned Government Pleader further submits that even after dismissal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent on 09.01.2008 and the revision by the 1st respondent on 04.03.2008, the petitioner failed to return the stocks and registers of the fair price shop and it shows the conduct of the petitioner. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The only point that has to be considered in this writ petition is whether copy of the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar is required to be furnished to the petitioner or not. In my considered view, it is necessary to be furnished in view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court which categorically held that non-supply of copy of primary report, which formed basis of charges, vitiates the proceedings. It is apt to extract ‘Para-11” of the said decision, as under: “In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. It is not in dispute that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to the appellant. In K.RADHA KRISHNA NAIDU V. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS[2], it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case effectively. It was further held that the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfill the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show-cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. In that case the petitioner there had been given opportunity of personal hearing but even then the Court held that the opportunity was not real inasmuch as the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer. In S.MALLA REDDY V. M.VIJAYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS[3] this Court held that the authorization of fair price shop could not have been cancelled on the basis of vague notice”. In this case, it is admitted that the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar. It is also not in dispute that the said report was the basis for passing of the impugned order. Therefore, in my opinion, the said report is crucial document which has to be furnished to the petitioner and non-furnishing of the same would vitiate the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the orders of cancellation of authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner passed by the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2007, as confirmed by respondents 2 and 1 by orders dated 09.01.2008 and 04.03.2008 respectively are hereby set aside. However, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the matter after furnishing to the petitioner a copy of the report of Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 20-11-2009 Gsn. [1] 2006 (3) L.S. 191 (D.B) [2] 1996 (1) ALD 473 = 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP) [3] 2005 (3) ALT 100 = 2005 (5) ALD (NOC) 174