ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a Fair Price Shop No. 23 at Lingapuram Village, Maddur Mandal and Warangal District for the past several years without any complaints. While things stood thus the respondent No.3 issued show cause notice in Rc.No.H/2272/10 dated 21.12.2010 basing on the report submitted by the respondent No.4 in Letter No. A/60/2010, dated 22.11.2010, against the petitioner in carrying on the activities of the Fair Price Shop No.23. Pursuant to the said show cause notice dated 21.12.2010 the petitioner submitted his explanation refuting all the allegations made by the respondent No.3 in the show cause notice vide dated 04.01.2011. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned order for cancellation of authorization subsisting in petitioner’s favour for the shop No.23 of Lingapuram Village, vide Rc.No.H/2272/2010, dated 12.12.2011 i.e., after lapse of almost an year from the date of show cause notice issued by the respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 issued impugned orders for cancellation of authorization solely basing on the report submitted by the respondent No.3 dated 08.12.2011, on the ground that the wife of the petitioner is a Government Employee as per G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 12.12.2011 issued by the respondent No.3 the petitioner filed an Appeal under clause 20 of the A.P. State PDS(Control) Order, 2008, in Appeal No. 9/2011. The respondent No.2 merely basing on the allegations made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, dismissed the same more particularly in view of the G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011 which is effective from the date of issuance of the said G.O. and application of the guidelines for selection and appointment of Fair Price shop dealers, which prohibits appointment of Government employees family members as Fair Price shop dealers.

4. Learned counsel further submits that application of the said G.O. in this case for cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop and the guidelines therein is illegal and irrational and the same is not considered by the respondent No.2 while disposing the Appeal. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed revision in Revision No.01/2013 under Rule 21 of A.P.State PDS (Control) Order, 2008, before the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 without issuing any notice or hearing to the petitioner passed orders upholding the finding of the respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent No.1 failed to appreciate the fact that the G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011 issued in suppression of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.52 C.A, F and C.S(C.S.I) Department, dated 18.12.2008 is prospective and the same is not applicable for the appointments made prior to the issuance of the said G.O. and application of the same to the prior appointments is illegal and without application of minds as the said G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011 categorically discloses the effective date as from the date of issuance of the same and requested to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents submits that basing on the complaints made by the villagers, the respondent- authorities conducted enquiry and basing on the enquiry, the respondents have cancelled the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that wife of the petitioner is working as Government Teacher and in view of irregularities, the petitioner is not eligible for authorization of Fair Price Shop