IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25535 of 2003 Between: G.Nageswaraiah, S/o. Narasimhulu, Shop No.II, Reddipalli Village, Nallamada Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (C.S.), Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penugonda, Ananthapur District. ..RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the entire records in D.Dis.No.K4/PKD/2566/2001, dated 23-10- 2003 passed by the Ist respondent herein setting aside the orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.K4/1777/2000 dt. 15-1- 2001 and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25535 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner at relevant time was authorised Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer for shop No.II of Reddipalli village, Nallamada Mandal, Anantapur District. Third respondent having come to know about certain irregularities committed by petitioner initiated enquiry into four charges, that the petitioner failed to issue essential commodities to twenty cardholders, that on physical veriﬁcation, there were variations, that the petitioner was not having valid authorisation and foodgrain licence and that petitioner failed to display stock cum price board at his shop. After such enquiry, Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (RDO) passed orders on 13.05.1999 cancelling authorisation. Petitioner then ﬁled appeal before Joint Collector, who by order, dated 19.07.1999 set aside the order and remanded the case to RDO. On such remand, RDO by order, dated 26.11.1999 took a lenient view and restored authorisation while imposing a ﬁne of Rs.500/-. This order has become ﬁnal. However, some time thereafter, Sarpanch of Reddipalli village ﬁled an appeal. Again, the appellate authority remanded the matter to RDO observing that when there were allegations of black marketing, the order of restoration of authorisation is unsustainable. The Sarpanch did not prefer any revision against this order. The petitioner ﬁled revision before District Collector, who dismissed the revision but curiously ﬁrst respondent directed RDO to notify the vacancy as per rule of reservation. This order is assailed in the writ petition. The petitioner contends that when revision petition ﬁled by petitioner was dismissed, the eﬀect of which would be the matter stands remanded to RDO, and therefore, the Collector ought not to have directed RDO to renotify the vacancy which amounts to cancellation of authorisation. It is also urged that there was no material before second respondent to arrive at a conclusion that there was black marketing by petitioner. The RDO has ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit supporting the impugned order. First respondent while passing impugned order exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him under clause 18 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973. There is no dispute that initially Joint Collector remanded the matter to RDO, who after such remand taking a lenient view imposed a ﬁne of Rs.500/-. When the Sarpanch ﬁled appeal against said order, dated 26.11.1999, Joint Collector rightly thought it ﬁt that restoration of authorisation is unsustainable, and therefore, remanded the matter. If a revision against the said order by petitioner is dismissed, it amounts to conﬁrmation of Joint collector’s order. The revisional authority ought to have rested there. Instead revisional authority proceeded further and passed order directing RDO to renotify the vacancy, which amounts to cancellation of authorisation. This results in depriving the petitioner of a valuable right of defending before original authority and appellate authority who exercised quasi-judicial power. In that view of the matter, ﬁrst respondent committed grave error on the face of record requiring correction. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to RDO for fresh enquiry into the four charges framed against petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 15.10.2008. pln