( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the order of the first respondent dated 17-5-1997 confirming the order of the second respondent as well as the third respondent dated 22-3-1997 and 16-11-1995 respectively. The petitioner prays for a Writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the first and second respondents as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act ) and the A. P. Scheduled commodities (Regulation of Distribution by card System) Order, 1973 (for brevity the control Order ).

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer of Nemakal village in the year 1987. The villagers made certain allegations against the petitioner. The local m. L. A. forwarded the representation of the villagers to the Revenue Divisional Officer who is competent authority to appoint a fair price shop dealer. The villagers appear to have alleged that the petitioner is charging higher rates for sugar and kerosene, that he issued less quantity of rice depriving the eligibility of the cardholders and that he made false entries in the record though he did not issue full entitlement. The Mandal revenue Officer conducted an inquiry into the allegations and submitted a report to the third respondent, who by an order dated 2-6-1995 kept the petitioner under suspension. On 6-9-1995 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner informing the charges as noticed hereinabove.

( 3 ) THE petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-9-1995 inter alia stating that he sold sugar and kerosene at correct prices, that he supplied rice intended to cardholders according to the entitlement and that he made correct entries in the registers as well as the cards after distributing essential commodities to the cardholders. He also submitted that there are no complaints at any time by any of the cardholders. After considering the explanation of the petitioner herein, the third respondent by proceedings dated 16-11-1995 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner s appeal to the joint Collector was dismissed on 22-3-1996 and the subsequent revision to the Collector was also unsuccessful.

( 4 ) SRI K. V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the following effect. The order passed by the District Collector confirming the order of the appellate authority as well as the original order is vitiated by procedural irregularity and illegality. Under sub-clause (4) of Clause 3 of the Control Order, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to conduct an enquiry before passing an order of cancellation; no such enquiry was conducted and the order was passed merely based on the report alleged to have been submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer is required to adhere to the principles of natural justice in letter and spirit by not only issuing a notice in writing enabling the petitioner to submit an explanation but also affording opportunity of hearing. Though a show-cause notice was issued on 6-9-1995 informing that the petitioner will be heard in person, if he so desires, on 13-9-1995, no such opportunity was given. As the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-9-1995, the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have heard the petitioner on 13-9-1995 and that it is incumbent on the revenue Divisional Officer first to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and then fix the date for hearing, which procedure is violated. The report of the mandal Revenue Officer was not furnished. The requirement of giving an opportunity of being heard is essential and mandatory because when a minor penalty of forfeiture of deposit is imposed in accordance with sub-clause (2) of Clause 3 of the Control order provide for an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, when a major penalty like suspension or cancellation of authorization is imposed, an order passed without gi