ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the orders vide Ref:D/807/2016, Dt.23.06.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the petitioner’s F.P.Shop authorization of F.P.Shop No.17, Buchannapalli Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District without affording any opportunity and contrary to clause 5 (5) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System, 2008 as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P.Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.17 Buchannapalli Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District and to pass…”.

2. Heard Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 23.06.2016 the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization in respect of Shop No.17, Buchannapalli Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District was cancelled without following due procedure as contemplated under clause

5(5) of Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. He further submits that before passing the impugned order, the respondents had not served any notice and also not conducted any detailed enquiry as required under clause 5(5) of the Control Orders, 2008. He further submits that the petitioner is still residing at Buchanapalli village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District, even after marriage and she has been continuing distribution of stocks under PDS System till today, without there being any other complaints. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of cancellation are liable to be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents submits that a counter has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that the 4th respondent has submitted a report to the 3rd respondent for cancellation of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop Dealership authorization as petitioner is not residing in the same village. While so, Smt. V. Rama Devi, Fair Price Shop Dealer has personally attended before the 3rd respondent on 23.05.2016 and she gave a representation that she is residing in the same village. Then the 4th respondent reported that as per his instructions the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Gopavaram went to the Village to serve the cancellation orders to the Fair Price shop Dealer, but Smt.V. Rama Devi, Fair Price Shop Dealer was not residing in the village and hence the orders were served on Sri V.Jayaramaiah who is the father of the Fair Price Shop Dealer in her absence (copy of the served copy of Ref:D/807/2016, Dated 23.06.2016 which was served on 26.06.2016 to the father of the Fair Price Shop Dealer is enclosed). He submits that pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 23.05.2016. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot canvass that no notice was served upon her and he further submits that the 4th respondent conducted a detailed enquiry with the villagers as well as the father of the petitioner on 03.05.2016, wherein, the villagers as well as the father of the petitioner specifically submitted that after the marriage of the petitioner, she has been residing with her husband in another village, but not in Buchanapalli village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District. Therefore, in view of clause of 5(5) of Control Orders, 2008 as well as Clause 20 of Authorization Form –II Rules, under which the petitioner was appointed, the petitioner must reside in the same village to hold Fair Price shop Dealership in her favour. He further submits that having admitted by the father of the petitioner that the petitioner is not residing in the said village, the impugned order of cancellation was passed after due enquiry as contemplated and after issuan