IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1213 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2008 in WP NO : 16385 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Nalamalapu Papa Rao, S/o. Jalaiah, Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 Katta Balakrishna, S/o. Sreenu, Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 Nalamalapu Seshaiah, S/o. Kotaiah, Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Nalamalupu Anjamma,' W/o. Balaiah, Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. 5 Pandra Bala Kotaiah, S/o. Kotaiah, Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 L. Subbulu, W/o. Yesuratnam, Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byi ts District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Collector (CS)/Appellate Authority, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5 The Tahsildar, Tangutur, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.MALLIK The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 19.8.2008 in W.P. No. 16385 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge set aside orders dated 21.4.2008 and 9.6.2008 passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 3 respectively. The appellants are cardholders in respect of fair price shop in Vasepallipadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. By order dated 21.4.2008 the respondent No.4 cancelled the authorization of respondent No.1. Appeal filed by the respondent No.1 against the said order before the Respondent No.3 was dismissed by the latter by his order dated 9.6.2008. The said two orders were questioned by the Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.16385 of 2008. The case of the appellants in the writ petition was that the respondent No.4 committed a serious error in cancelling the authorization of respondent No.1 merely on the ground that she failed to submit her explanation. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the respondent No.1 that even in the absence of explanation submitted by her, a duty is cast on respondent No. 4 to drive home the charge that the respondent No.1 diverted 22.34 quintals of rice meant for distribution to the cardholders to the black-market. On that premise, the learned Single Judge set aside the orders of respondents 4 and 3 and gave liberty to the respondent No.4 to pass a fresh order on the basis of the material available on record. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants who are some of the cardholders attached to the fair price shop in question, filed the present Writ Appeal with the leave of this court. We have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the Respondents 2 to 5. As regards the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, we are in complete agreement with the same, because, even in the absence of explanation, it is the duty of Disciplinary Authority to record reasons in its coming to conclusion that the fair price shop dealer (respondent No.1) is guilty of omissions and commissions for the purpose of cancellation of authorization. As cancellation of fair price shop results in serious adverse consequences, a duty, in law, is cast on the Disciplinary Authority to record its reasons in support of its conclusion that the licensee is guilty of misconduct. In this view of the matter, we find no exception to the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, the appellants specifically pleaded that the respondent No.1 has earlier filed W.P. No. 12817 of 2008 questioning the same orders which are impugned in the writ petition out of which the present writ appeal arises. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 admitted this fact. But, she sought to explain that the respondent No.1 is an illiterate and due to her failure to give proper instructions, the fact of her filing earlier writ petition and its withdrawal to enable her to pursue the remedy of revision, could not be brought to the notice of this Court. She further stated that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn to enable respondent No.1 to pursue her revision petition. We have not felt persuaded to accept this explanation. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent No.1 has filed writ petition earlier questioning the same orders which are the subject matter of the present writ petition and she had withdrawn the said writ petition. Nothing is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn for availing the remedy of revision nor liberty was sought in the earlier writ petition from this court to file a fresh writ petition. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent No.1 in order to cover up her lapse in not bringing to the notice of this court the fact of filing earlier a writ petition is not convincing. Though ordinarily the respondent No.1 would have been permitted to run the fair price shop till such time as the respondent No.4 passes a fresh order, but in view of the fact that she failed to disclose the fact of filing writ petition earlier, we are constrained to direct that the respondent No.1 shall not be continued as fair price shop dealer, till the respondent No.4 passes a fresh order, as directed by the learned Single Judge. Instead, Respondent No.4 may make temporary arrangement for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, pending passing of a fresh order by him. The Respondent No.4 shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above modification of the order of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequal to disposal of the Writ Appeal, WA MP No. 2362 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy January 22, 2009 MAS