THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21421 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is an authorized dealer of fair price shop No.II of Teemara Village, Seedhi Post, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District. This writ petition is filed questioning order, dated 19.09.2008, passed by the first respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda Division, Palakonda, Srikakulam District, in D.No.787/08 B, cancelling the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner on certain allegations. The Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Pathapatnam, inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner on 19.04.2008 on the complaint lodged by Sarpanch, Seedhi, Teemara Panchayat, and submitted a report, based on which, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and thereby, the second respondent – Tahsildar, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District, issued show cause notice, dated 14.05.2008 to the petitioner on the allegations that he was not running the shop but running the same through a benami, he sold the essential commodities at higher rates, he did not attend to the review meetings and he is not selling the essential commodities at his authorized place. He submitted explanation for the same on 18.05.2008. Thereupon, the second respondent after examining the explanation of the petitioner, suspended his fair price shop authorization by proceedings, dated 18.06.2008, issued in Rc.No.301/08/C.S.D.T. As against the said suspension order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the first respondent but as no interim orders were passed therein, he filed Writ Petition No.14531 of 2008 and this Court while disposing of the same by order, dated 08.07.2008, directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner and to complete the enquiry. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner. In this writ petition, it is the allegation of the petitioner that without giving any prior notice and opportunity to him, the impugned order is passed by the first respondent. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed not only contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that no findings are recorded by the first respondent with regard to the explanation offered by the petitioner and the impugned order is bereft of reasons. A counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent. In the counter-affidavit, while extracting the charges framed against the petitioner and denying his allegations, it is stated that the second respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner with a direction to submit his explanation and as the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory, his fair price shop authorisation was suspended. It is also stated that in view of the directions issued by this Court, after giving a notice for enquiry on 30.08.2008, the first respondent passed the impugned order. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that there is no show cause notice issued to the petitioner by framing definite charges against him, before passing such order by the first respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner as against the proceedings issued by the second respondent suspending his fair price shop authorisation. As per the provisions of the Control Order, which was in force during relevant point of time, the Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to cancel the fair price shop authorisation of a dealer. Merely because the appeal is preferred against the suspension proceedings issued by the second respondent, the first respondent should not have passed the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner, basing on the show cause notice issued by the second respondent. Unless a separate show cause notice is issued by the authority, who empowered to cancel the fair price shop authorisation of a dealer, no order can be passed in regard thereto. It is to be noticed that even with reference to the explanation offered by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent, though the same is referred to in the impugned order, no findings are recorded by the first respondent and only on the ground that the explanation is not satisfactory, the impugned order is passed. It is also to be noticed that though the show cause notice issued by the second respondent refers to several charges, which are explained by the petitioner by filing explanation before the second respondent, the first respondent without conducting any independent enquiry and without recording any finding to that effect, has passed the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni