ORDER :

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:-

“ to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.F/5147/2014 dated 27.02.2015 passed by the 4th respondent where under the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled shop No.11, Umamaheswarapuram Village, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District and the consequential proceedings in Rc.CS2/55/2015 dated 23.6.2015 of the 3rd respondent and the proceedings in Rc.CS2/223/2015 dated 21.10.2015 of the 2nd respondent without enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to release the commodities in favour of the petitioner for distributing the same to the card holders and pass such other and further orders that may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without conducting any enquiry as per Clause 8(4) of the Control Orders, 2018 and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the cancellation orders are passed which is contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Kalyani vs District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, 2006 (5) ALD 796 (DB) and Smt. Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool, 2015 (3) ALD 617. This Division Bench of this Court in M. Kalyani vs District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and Others, held that:-

“In our opinion, the order passed by respondent No. 3 cancelling the authorization of the appellant suffers from patent violation of the rules of natural justice and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by refusing to annul the same. It is not in dispute that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which formed the basis of the charges, was not supplied to the appellant. In K. Radha Krishna Naidu v. Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and Ors. 1996 (1) ALD 473 : 1996 (1) LS 456 (AP), it was held that the primary report on the basis of which the charges were framed by the Licensing Authority against the dealer, being not furnished to the dealer, vitiates the proceedings due to violation of the principles of natural justice and absence of sufficient opportunity to the dealer to defend his case effectively. It was further held that the reasonable opportunity should be real and effective and simply because the petitioner submitted his explanation, it does not fulfil the requirement of reasonable opportunity, more so, when the show-cause notice would clearly indicate that the only basis is the report. In that case the petitioner therein had been given opportunity of personal hearing but even then the Court held that the opportunity was not real inasmuch as the basic document had not been supplied to the dealer. In S. Malla Reddy v. M. Vijayalakshmi and Others, 2005 (3) ALT 100=2005 (5) ALD (NOC) 174, this Court held that the authorization of fair price shop could not have been cancelled on the basis of vague notice.”

4. Further, this Court in B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, observed as follows:-

10. 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 any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. The licensing/disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to