ORDER :

The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to declare the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Ro.No.117-1/2021, dated 17.02.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop No.0316026, Gannavaram Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District contrary to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.22594/2021 and without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders dated 10.08.2020 is contrary to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner i.e., W.P.No.22594 of 2021. The said Writ Petition is disposed of on 06.10.2021, the operative portion reads as follows:

“Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to complete the final enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of clause 8(4) of Control Order, 2018, and as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015 (4) ALT 572, Pidikiti Sailaja v. State of A.P., 2015(2) ALT 667 and C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015(6) ALD 359, by conducting enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner by adducing evidence and give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness and to defend the petitioner’s case in the enquiry and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner”

3. In the above said orders this Hon’ble Court specifically directed the parties to conduct enquiry as per observations made by this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies Kurnool and others. But contrary to the said directions the respondents have passed the present impugned orders dated 17.02.2022.

4. To support his contention he has mainly relied on the references made to the said impugned orders i.e., reference No.1 is Rc.No.45/2021/ of Assistant Supply Officer, Narsipatnam, dated 24.07.2020, reference No.2 is show cause notice of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, dated 10.08.2020, reference No.4 is proceedings of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 10.08.2020, reference No.5 is explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 06.09.2021, reference No.6 is orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.22594 of 2021, reference No.7 is the complaints received from the cardholders of Gannavaram Village, Nathavaram Mandal, dated 28.12.2021 and the final reference is the notice in Rc.No.177-1/2022/F, dated 04.02.2022 and opportunity is given for personal hearing and heard the arguments of the fair price shop dealer on 14.02.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inspite of direction given by this Court, the respondents have not conducted any enquiry expect issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and after submitting the explanation and after giving opportunity of hearing, the respondents have passed the present impugned orders. When there is a specific direction to conduct enquiry as per the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies Kurnool and others. The observations of this Hon’ble Court in the above said judgment reads as follows:

“An “enquiry” pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such “enquiry” must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent an