ORDER :

The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to declare the Orders of the 2nd respondent in RC.No.11/2009-S7, dated 04.12.2009 setting aside the orders of the 3rd respondent in A.C.D.Dis.No.17/2008-S7, dated 31.03.2009 restoring the authorization to distribute essential commodities in favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.”

2. Heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Kubadpuram Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, and she has been running the said shop for the last one decade without any complaint from anybody. On 28.04.2003, the respondent No.4 came to his shop and took away the original sales and stock registers, authorization etc. Later, he obtained a report from the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) that there is a variation of 1.58 quintals of rice etc., A variation of 1.5 Kgs is permissible. The said report is purported to have been submitted to the 4th respondent recommending for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner. A copy of the report was not given to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to explain the facts. The 4th respondent, without conducting any preliminary enquiry, issued Proceedings in Rc.No.981-A/2003- G, dated 20.04.2003, suspending the authorization of the petitioner. A show cause notice, dated 20.04.2003 was also issued. The petitioner could not submit her explanation as she was suffering from Jaundice and was taking medical treatment under the care of Dr. Narra Venkateswara Rao. Thereupon, the 4th respondent passed Orders, dated 25.06.2003, in D.Dis.No.981-A/2003-G, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent authorities appointed the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer on temporary basis. Aggrieved by the Orders of the Respondent No.4, she filed Appeal No.32/2003 before the 3rd respondent. As the 3rd respondent did not pass any orders even after one year, she filed W.P.No.4683 of 2004 before this Court. This Court, by Order dated 12.03.2004, directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the Appeal within Six weeks. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed orders in A.C.D.Dis.No.32/2003-S7, dated 15.05.2004, directing the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to present her views, and accordingly, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation to the show cause notice to the 4th respondent.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the 4th respondent passed Orders in D.Dis.No.2281/2003-G, dated 10.06.2004, again cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, without any application of mind and without any regard to the material on record. Aggrieved by the said Order, she filed Appeal No.41/2003 before the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent by Order dated 09.03.2005 dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 09.03.2005, she filed Revision Petition No.18 of 2005 before the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not disposing the Revision Petition, she again filed W.P.No.20899 of 2005 before this Court. This Court by order dated 14.11.2007 allowed the said Writ Petition and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent and directed him to give an opportunity to the petitioner and hear and make appropriate orders. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed Orders in A.C.D.Dis.No.17/2008-S7, dated 31.03.2009, setting aside the orders of the respondent No.4.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the 4th respondent issued Orders in Rc.No.1105/20070 G, dated 26.06.2009, permitting the petitioner to distribute essential commodities to the card holders. Thereafter, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.43,000/