ORDER:- Heard Sri E.Venkat Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies. Sri E.Venkat Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the order impugned in the Writ Petition made by the 1st respondent and further had taken this Court through the order made by the 2nd respondent and would maintain that at both stages the authorities had not followed the principles of natural justice and had not recorded appropriate reasons on appreciation of the material available on record. The Counsel also would contend that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer also had not been furnished. Incidentally, the learned Counsel had taken this Court through the specific contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and further had drawn the attention of this Court to the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.V.M.P.No.2135/2006. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies had taken this Court through the order of cancellation made by the 3rd respondent wherein the reasons had been recorded in detail. The learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies also would contend that before the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent, though opportunity had been given, the writ petitioner had not availed the said opportunity. In all fairness, the learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies would submit that as far as the order made by the 1st respondent is concerned, the relevant portion of the order, no doubt, appears to be cryptic. The learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies also placed strong reliance on certain decisions and would submit that in a case of this nature, where the findings recorded by the primary authority - the Revenue Divisional Officer had been confirmed by the appellate authority - the concerned Joint Collector and further confirmed by the Revisional Authority by the District collector, such orders recording certain factual findings not to be disturbed by a Writ Court, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the Counsel. Heard the Counsel. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Ref.No.B/1528/2004, dated 29-3-2005, on the file of 3rd respondent wherein the Fair Price Shop authorization of the petitioner was cancelled which has been confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent vide impugned proceedings defendant 13-10-2005 and further confirmed in Revision by the 1st respondent vide impugned proceedings Ref.No.1(3)/3548/2005, dated 13-5-2006 and quash the same as the same is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the provisions of A.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 and pass such other suitable orders. This Court issued rule nisi on 23-6-2006 and granted interim suspension in W.P.M.P.No.15686/2006. It is stated that the writ petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Ward No.5, 6 and 10 of Moragudi village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, Kadapa District as per the authorization under Section 3(4) of Annexure of the A.P.Public Distribution System (Order) 2001 and as such the petitioner had been running the Fair Price Shop fairly and as per prescribed Rules till March 2005. It is also stated that there are 396 Rice Cards and 396 Kerosene Coupons under the petitioner's shop and that she has been distributing the essential commodities among all the cardholders without any complaint whatsoever. It is averred by the petitioner that while the matter stood thus, suddenly, the 3rd respondent had passed an order suspending her dealership vide Ref.No.B/1528/2004, dt.16-12-2004. It is also stated by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had stated in the suspension order passed against her basing upon the report of the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent did not issue any notice to her nor has given any opportunity to defend and explain the allegations leveled against her before submitting his report and thus, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. Further it is stated that in view of the change of the Ruling Party in the State supporters of the Ruling Party are being installed wherever possible including the Public Distribution System. Further it is stated that in view of the change of the Ruling Party in the State supporters of the Ruling Party are being installed wherever possible including the Public Distribution System. The petitioner also states that because of continuous pressure, a false report was submitted by the 4th respondent against her stating that one Sri Palla Chinna Peddaiah and 20 others of his village given complaint alleging improper distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders and that the 4th respondent having allegedly inspected the Fair Price Shop and further allegedly having found that she had committed irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders under Public Distribution System. The main allegations against the petitioner as per the suspension order are as follows:- 1. That the Fair Price Shop Dealer is distributing the ECs at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government i.e., Rice @ Rs.5.50 per kg. instead of Rs.5.25 per kg. AAY Rice @ Rs.3.50 per Kg., instead of Rs.3.00 and Kerosene at Rs.10.00 per liter instead of Rs.9.50 per litre. 2. That the Fair Price Shop Dealer is distributing Rice at lesser quantity than the prescribed scale of distribution i.e., 18 kgs to the 5 and above family member cardholders instead of 20 kgs. 3. that the Fair Price Shop Dealer is not maintained sales and stock registers. 4. that the Fair Price Shop Dealer is distributing ECs to the cardholders only for two days. Further it is averred by the petitioner that there was no such enquiry conducted as alleged by the 4th respondent and the above mentioned allegations are made against her as if on the complaint given by Sri Palla Chinna Peddaiah and 20 others while submitting his report and that he reliably understand that the 4th respondent managed to submit the said report by taking signatures of the said P.Chinna Peddaiah and 20 others while he asked them to sign for sanction of loan and interested persons can apply, by taking signatures, on that pretext, the 4th respondent obtained their signatures and fabricated a complaint and based his report on the same at the instances of and in collusion with the supporters of the Ruling Party. The petitioner also states that to prove her stand, she also filed the affidavit given by the said Palla Chinna Peddaiah and in fact, the said affidavit was filed before this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, which was filed against suspension of authorization. It is also stated that the petitioner had not received any show cause notice prior to passing of the suspension order and the petitioner is a helpless widow and she had no other source of livelihood and solely dependent on the income from Fair Price Shop. Further it is averred that no regular enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and therefore, the orders of suspension passed by the 3rd respondent based on the report of the 4th respondent bearing Ref.No.B/468/04, dated 10-12-2004, suspending her authorization is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and against the said orders of the 3rd respondent dated 16-12-2004, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.24701/004 before this Court challenging the same on several grounds and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition by order dt.29-12-2004 as hereunder:- "Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. In case no alternative arrangements have been made in place of the petitioner, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained, till the appellate authority passes orders in the application for stay, provided it is filed within 10 days from today. There shall be no order as to costs." Further it is averred that after receiving the order copy in W.P.No.24701/2004, dt.3-1-2005, the petitioner approached 4th respondent for receiving the essential commodities for the month of January, 2005. At that time, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that alternative arrangements were made already after the date of suspension of the petitioner. The 4th respondent placed one Nallenna Fair Price Shop Dealer as in charge in the place of the petitioner without even intimating the petitioner about the said alternative arrangements. Further it is stated that the petitioner filed appeal against the suspension order dated 16-12-2004 before the 2nd respondent on 10-1-2005 along with stay petition and the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders till 10-2-2005. Further it is stated that the petitioner filed appeal against the suspension order dated 16-12-2004 before the 2nd respondent on 10-1-2005 along with stay petition and the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders till 10-2-2005. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2538/2005 praying for a direction not to give effect to the proceedings Ref.No.B/1528/2004, dt.16-12-2004 and restore the petitioner as the Fair Price Shop Dealer pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 15-12-2005 as hereunder:- "The allegations made against the petitioner for suspending the authorization pending enquiry are not so serious. They are, in fact, vague and general in nature. Further, even before any show cause notice was issued and her explanation was filed in response to it, the 3rd respondent in the order dt.16-12-2004, observed as under:- "From the above, it is clearly established that the Fair Price Shop Dealer is not distributing essential commodities to the cardholders. She indulged in clandestine business by issuing lesser quantity than the prescribed quantity as per scale of distribution and violated A.P. Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001." Such findings are impermissible at this stage. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the order of suspension dated 16-12-2004 passed against the petitioner shall remained stayed, till the 2nd respondent disposes of the appeal and she shall be entitled to function as dealer. There shall be no order as to costs." Further it is stated that after receipt of the said order, the respondents reinstated the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer from the month of March, 2005 and entrusted the essential commodities. After reinstating the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer, the 4th respondent issued show cause notice dated 23- 2-2005 calling upon the petitioner to explain on the alleged irregularities mentioned in the report of the 4th respondent dated 10-12-2004. Even without waiting for the disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent gave show cause notice as to why the authorization shall not be cancelled. After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 6-3-2005, charge wise, through her Counsel and a copy of the said explanation also is filed before this Court. After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 6-3-2005, charge wise, through her Counsel and a copy of the said explanation also is filed before this Court. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Dis.No.1(3)103/2005, dated 23-3-2005 rejecting the stay application and disposed of the appeal requesting the 4th respondent to dispose of the case within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Before passing the said order dt.23-3-2005, the 2nd respondent neither gave any notice to the petitioner nor to her Counsel before disposal of the stay application and appeal. After receiving the order dt.23-3-2005 passed by the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent issued impugned proceedings dt.29-3-2005 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent canceling the authorization and terminating the dealership with immediate effect is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Against the orders of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent on 14-4-2005 along with stay application. When the appeal was not taken up for hearing and as the matter was delayer, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9743/2005 and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition by order dt.27-4-2005 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be continued as Fair Price Shop Dealer till final order is passed in the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for hearing of the appeal by filing written arguments also through her Counsel but from time to time the appeal was adjourned and ultimately, the 2nd respondent without considering any of the grounds raised by the petitioner had simply rejected the appeal vide impugned proceedings Ref.No.1(3)/954, dated 13-10-2005. It is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent in the Order dt.13-10-2005 referred to the brief history of the case and also referred to the grounds, but while commencing the order itself observed as hereunder:- "On the day of final hearing i.e., on 1-10-2005, the appellant has not attended the Court. It is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent in the Order dt.13-10-2005 referred to the brief history of the case and also referred to the grounds, but while commencing the order itself observed as hereunder:- "On the day of final hearing i.e., on 1-10-2005, the appellant has not attended the Court. But, the Counsel on behalf of the appellant has attended the Court and not argued the case. Though enough opportunity has been given, the Counsel failed to argue the case." No doubt, the 2nd respondent recorded certain reasons further and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Specific stand is taken before this Court that the said proceeding would go to show that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner either in the appeal or in the written arguments had been considered. Further, respondents always have been relying upon the report submitted by the M.R.O., - 4th respondent which is behind back of the petitioner and though the petitioner specifically had taken the objection as to the non-furnishing of the report in his explanation itself submitted to the show cause notice, till date, the said report as well as copies of the alleged complaints said to have been given by the villagers are not furnished to the petitioner and this shows the respondents are predetermined to sack the petitioner thereby to see that her authorization is cancelled. Further when the petitioner filed affidavit of the alleged complaint named in the suspension order in which the alleged complaint stated that he was never given any such complaint, the respondents 1 and 2 being an appellate and revisional authorities have not even adverted to that and without conducting any enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner and without recording any evidence as basis, these proceedings of cancellation of authorization had been done illegal and in an arbitrary fashion. Further it is stated that the finding of the 2nd respondent that the charges are held to be proved is baseless and the allegation is vague and the finding also is vague. Further it is stated that the finding of the 2nd respondent that the charges are held to be proved is baseless and the allegation is vague and the finding also is vague. Further it is stated that as against the orders made in appeal by 2nd respondent dt.13-10-2005 rejecting the appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24803/2005 questioning the impugned orders of cancellation dt.29-3-205 as well as the orders made in appeal by the 2nd respondent dt.13-10-2005 and this Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition by order dt.25-11-2005 directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision before the 1st respondent as provided under Clause 21 of the Control Order and ultimately, this Court also further directed that filing of such revision before 1st respondent, there shall be stay of operation of the order of cancellation confirmed in appeal till disposal of the revision. In the light of the directions, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent and the petitioner has been continued throughout. Further it is stated that strangely and surprisingly, the 1st respondent passed impugned order vide proceedings Ref.No.1(3)/3548/2005, dt.13-5-2006 dismissing the revision without any reason and without considering the grounds of revision as well as the explanation and other contentions of the petitioner. A reading of the impugned order made in revision would go to show that there is no appreciation of any of the contentions of the petitioner and just by recording that the petitioner has failed to prove her case and the Counsel for the petitioner had requested for adjournments, no other reasons had been recorded. In the said order dt.13-5-2006 of the 1st respondent, the facts of the case had been referred to and the charges and the grounds also had been referred to. But, however, the order made by the 1st respondent - the revisional authority reads as hereunder:- "The Revision Petition dismissed as sufficient chances were given for the petitioner to prove his case. But every time, the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has been asking for adjournments. Hence, I do not find any reasons or merits to interfere with the orders of the Joint Collector, Kadapa passed in Ref.No.1(3)954/2005, dt.13-10-2005 upholding the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu in Progs.No.B/1528/2004, dated 29-3-2005 are hereby upheld. But every time, the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has been asking for adjournments. Hence, I do not find any reasons or merits to interfere with the orders of the Joint Collector, Kadapa passed in Ref.No.1(3)954/2005, dt.13-10-2005 upholding the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu in Progs.No.B/1528/2004, dated 29-3-2005 are hereby upheld. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed." Further it is stated that when the petitioner had filed the revision with specific grounds as to charges, explanation, with other legal contentions also, nothing had been considered by the 1st respondent and that the 1st respondent had simply given the facts let to the case and the grounds of revision and while passing the order nothing had been considered, as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court categorically held that the authorities under the Control Order, both appellate and revisional authorities, have to consider the appeal/revision from proper prospective and any proceedings effected without giving proper opportunity to the licensees under the Control Order, the same are liable to be set aside. It is further stated that the petitioner has been continued as Fair Price Shop Dealer all through during the proceedings before the respondent and in fact, this Court after finding that the allegations are of vague nature and the allegations are not so serious, thereby to prevent the petitioner to operate the authorization, this Court was pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to function as Fair Price Shop Dealer pending the proceedings. It is also stated that the petitioner is a poor widow and she has to support 2 children and there is no other source of livelihood for her and if the petitioner is not allowed to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer, she will be put to irreparable loss and injury and that in fact, appreciating this situation, this Court was pleased to allow the petitioner to be continued during pendency of the proceedings through out. Further it is also stated that now in view of the orders passed, rejecting the revision, the respondents are initiating steps for discontinue the petitioner to appoint a new Fair Price Shop Dealer in the place of the petitioner and if the same is allowed to take place, the petitioner will be put to suffer irreparable loss as she has no other source of livelihood and she being widow, she has to support 2 children and mother also. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court praying for the reliefs specified supra. The counter affidavit is filed by respondents. The first respondent had sworn to the counter affidavit and it is averred in para 2 of the counter affidavit that on receipt of certain allegations made by Palla Chinna Peddaiah and 20 others of the Fair Price Shop area regarding improper distribution of E.Cs. to the cardholders, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammalamadugu had directed the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Jammalamadugu for enquiry and inspection of Fair Price Shop. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammalamadugu in Ref.B/468/2004, dt.10-12-2004 had reported that the Fair Price Shop Dealer committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders under Public Distribution System and recommended to take disciplinary action against the Fair Price Shop Dealer for lapses and that on perusal of report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammalamadugu, it was found that the Fair Price Shop Dealer had indulged in clandestine business by distributing lesser quantity to the cardholder than their eligibility and the Fair Price Shop Dealer did not maintain stock and sales registers and diverted huge stocks into black market for her personal benefit by depriving the genuine cardholders and the Fair Price Shop Dealer was distributing essential commodities only for two days and closed the Fair Price Shop in working hours and was distributing the essential commodities at higher rates. Thus, there is prima facie case of contravention of Control Order and Authorization of the petitioner was suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu pending enquiry and finalization of the case. A show cause notice was also issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu to the Fair Price Shop Dealer for finalizing case and Fair Price Shop Dealer has filed the explanation and passed orders canceling the authorization of the Fair Price Shop Dealer, and hence the contention of the Fair Price Shop Dealer is false and baseless. A show cause notice was also issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu to the Fair Price Shop Dealer for finalizing case and Fair Price Shop Dealer has filed the explanation and passed orders canceling the authorization of the Fair Price Shop Dealer, and hence the contention of the Fair Price Shop Dealer is false and baseless. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioner in para 4 is not correct that a false report had been submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammalamadugu against the petitioner. It is stated that one Palla Chinna Peddaiah and 20 others of Moragudi village have put in petition against the Fair Price Shop Dealer regarding the improper distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders under Public Distribution System. Further it is averred that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammalamadugu, has directed the Enforcement Deputy Tahasildar (Civil Supplies), Jammalamadugu for enquiry and inspection of Fair Price Shop and asked to submit detailed report and that the Enforcement Deputy Tahasildar (Civil Supplies), Jammalamadugu had conducted enquiry with cardholders of the Fair Price Shop area and recorded written statement and the majority of the cardholders have stated that the petitioner was distributing essential commodities at lesser quantity than their eligibility prescribed by the Government and was distributing essential commodities at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government and was distributing essential commodities to them only for two days by closing the Fair Price Shop in working hours. Further it is stated that during the Fair Price Shop inspection, it was reported that the Fair Price Shop Dealer did not maintain stock and sales register and misused the stocks into black-market for her personal benefit and that therefore the Fair Price Shop Dealer had contravened Control Order and violated conditions of Authorization issued under Counsel.(5) of A.P. Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. Further it is stated that the contention of the petitioner in para 5 is not correct to say that there was no enquiry conducted as alleged by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer managed to submit the said report by taking signatures of the said P. Chinna Peddaiah and 20 others while he asked them to sign for sanction of loan and obtained signatures. Further it is averred that on receipt of certain allegations made by P.Chinna Peddaiah and 20 others of Moragudi village against the Fair Price Shop Dealer, the Enforcement Deputy Tahasildar (Civil Supplies), got the Fair Price Shop inspected and found that the Fair Price Shop Dealer has committed certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders under Public Distribution System and that during the enquiry with the cardholders of the Fair Price Shop area majority of the cardholders have stated that the Fair Price Shop Dealer was distributing essential commodities at lesser quantity than their eligibility prescribed by the Government and was distributing essential commodities at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government and she was distributing essential commodities only for two days by closing Fair Price Shop in working hours and that therefore, the petitioner had violated the conditions of authorization and contravened Control Order 2001. It is further averred that the authorization of the petitioner was suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu pending enquiry and finalization of the case in the interest of the Public Distribution System vide proceedings Ref.B/1528/2004, dated 16-12-2004 as the petitioner had violated conditions of Authorization and Contravened Control Order and that in order to finalize the disciplinary action against the Fair Price Shop Dealer, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu issued a show cause notice dated 23-2-2005 to the delinquent Fair Price Shop Dealer framing specific charges against her with a direction to submit her explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of show cause notice. Further it is also stated that this Court directed vide W.P.No.2538/2005 that the order of suspension, dated 16-12-2004, passed against the Appellant shall remain stayed, till the Joint Collector, disposes of appeal and the dealer shall be entitled to function as dealer. It is further stated that the Enforcement Deputy Tahasildar (Civil Supplies), Jammalamadugu had conducted a detailed enquiry with the cardholders of Fair Price Shop area and that the majority of the cardholders have given written statement stating that the petitioner was distributing essential commodities at lesser quantity than their eligibility prescribed by the Government and was distributing essential commodities at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government and that therefore the contention of the petitioner is not correct to say that no regular enquiry was conducted against her. It is also stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry and finalization of the case vide proceedings Ref.B/1528/2004, dt.16-12-2004 with a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammalamadugu to make alternate arrangements by keeping incharge Fair Price Shop Dealer to continue Public Distribution System to the cardholders and the copy was also served to the petitioner on 18-12-2004 and that therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not correct to say that without intimating her alternate arrangements were made by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the fact was informed to the petitioner by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Further it is stated that the stay and appeal petition under Clause 20(i) of A.P.S.P.D.S. Control Order 2001 filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu passed in proceedings No.B/1528/2004, dated 16-12-2004 suspending the authorization was rejected, as the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu are only an interim in nature and also stated that the Joint Collector, Kadapa vide proceedings L.Dis.I(3)/103/2005, dated 23-3-2005 had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu to dispose of the case within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further it is also stated that this Court again vide W.P.No.2538/2005 issued directions that the order of suspension dated 16-12-2004 passed against the appellant shall remain stayed, till the Joint Collector, disposes of the appeal and the dealer shall be entitled to function as dealer. Accordingly, the orders of this Court were implemented by allowing the Fair Price Shop Dealer to function as usual. It is also averred that based on the report of the mno, Jammalamadugu, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry and finalization of the case and that in order to finalize the disciplinary proceedings against the Fair Price Shop Dealer, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu vide Ref.B/1528/2004, dated 23-2-2005 framing specific charges against the delinquent dealer with a direction to submit her explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the petitioner also given an opportunity of being heard in person and directed her to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu on 7-3-2005 and accordingly, the Counsel for the delinquent Fair Price Shop Dealer had appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer and submitted written explanation on that date. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is baseless to say that without conducting enquiry and without giving an opportunity to her passed orders. Further it is also stated that in the meantime, the Joint Collector, Kadapa disposed of the appeal petition before him and passed orders that stay sought against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 16-12-2004 was rejected directing to dispose of the case within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order vide Joint Collector's proceedings Ref.No.I(3)/103/2005, dated 23-3-2005. Further it is averred that the regular enquiry was held and final orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu in proceedings Ref.No.B/1528/2004, dt.29-3-2005 by canceling the authorization as there were severe lapsed committed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner filed appeal before the Joint Collector, Kadapa requesting to stay the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu and set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu restoring her dealership and that the stay sought for by the petitioner was rejected and appeal petition was taken on file by the Joint Collector. Further it is stated that in the meanwhile, the appellant again filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.9743/2005, dated 27-4-2005 in this Court and this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition issued orders "to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders dt.29-3-2005 passed in Ref.B/1528/2004 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on merits and in accordance with law". Further it is stated that on the day of final hearing i.e., on 1-10-2005 the appellant did not attend the Court but the Counsel on behalf of the appellant had attended the Court and simply filed written explanation without arguing the case. Further it is averred that the petitioner failed to produce any recorded evidence to disprove the charges framed against her and she did not produce any stock and sales registers pertaining to the Fair Price Shop before the Inspecting Officer during enquiry. If she really maintained stocks and sales register, nothing would have prevented the dealer to produce the same before the Inspecting Officer. If she really maintained stocks and sales register, nothing would have prevented the dealer to produce the same before the Inspecting Officer. It is also stated that all the charges framed against the Fair Price Shop Dealer were held proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the Joint Collector, Kadapa vide proceedings No.I(3)/954/2005, dated 13-10-2005 had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu. It is also averred that the petitioner had filed a Revision petition before the District Collector, Kadapa against the orders of the Joint Collector, Kadapa, dated 13-10-2005 and that the District Collector also upheld the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu. The Revision Petition was dismissed duly after giving sufficient chances to the petitioner to prove her case, but every time the Counsel for the Revision petitioner was asking for adjournments and that therefore the contention of the petitioner is baseless say that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner either in appeal or written arguments were considered and she was not asked any copies of the alleged complaints said to have been given by the villagers to the petitioner. Further it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu issued a show cause notice to the delinquent Fair Price Shop Dealer by framing charges and obtained explanation and passed orders for cancellation of authorization of the Fair Price Shop Dealer. Further it is stated that the District Collector, Kadapa had given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to prove her case but every time the Counsel for the petitioner went on asking for adjournments. It is also stated that it is the responsibility of the revision petitioner to attend the Court and to produce the evidence before the Court for considering her case to disprove the charges framed against her and that based on the records the case was disposed of. Further it is averred that the revision was dismissed only after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to prove her case. Since every time the Counsel for revision petitioner was asking for adjournments, the revision was dismissed on justifiable grounds. It is also stated that the petitioner had committed serious lapses which indicate that she has been restoring to malpractices by not maintaining the Fair Price Shop properly. Therefore, it is not desirable to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer in purchased. It is also stated that the petitioner had committed serious lapses which indicate that she has been restoring to malpractices by not maintaining the Fair Price Shop properly. Therefore, it is not desirable to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer in purchased. Therefore, the authorization of the Fair Price Shop Dealer was cancelled under Clause 5(4) of Annexure to the A.P. Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. In the light of the same, the dismissal of the Writ Petition was prayed for. The order dt.29-3-2005 made by the 3rd respondent in Ref.B/1528/2004 also may be glanced at in this context. The order commenced with subject and references as hereunder:- Sub:- Civil Supplies - Jammalamadugu Division - Jammalamadugu (M) - Moragudi (v) - Smt.V.Venkata Lakshumma, F.P.Shop Dealer 5, 6 & 10 wards of Moragudi (v) - committed certain irregularities in distribution of E.Cs to the cardholders - Report received - Authorization suspended pending enquiry and finalization of the case - Show cause notice issued - Explanation submitted - Final Orders - Issued. Ref: 1) Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammalamadugu Ref.B/468/2004, dated 10-12-2004. 2) This office proceedings No.B/1528/2004, dated 16-12-2004. 3) This Office show cause notice Ref.B/1528/2004, dated 23-2-2005. 4) W.P.No.2538/2005 of Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad dated 15-2-2005. 5) Explanation of the delinquent F.P.Shop Dealer dated 6-3-2005. 6) Joint Collector, Cuddapah proceedings L.Dis.No.I(3)/103/2005 dated 23-3-2005. It is needless to say that reference No.1 is in relation to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammalamadugu Ref.B/468/2004, dt.10-12-2004. It appears that based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the authorization was suspended pending enquiry and no doubt several subsequent events had been recorded. The charges also had been recorded and after recording findings, ultimately, it was observed that there are very serious lapses committed by the Fair Price Shop Dealer and indicate that she had been resorting to malpractices by not maintaining the Fair Price Shop properly and hence it is not desirable to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer in Public Distribution System to such persons. In the light of the same, the authorization had been cancelled by the primary authority. As already referred to supra, before the 2nd respondent - the appellate authority, whatever the reasons may be, no proper opportunity had been given even as can be seen from the relevant portion of the order which already had been specified above. In the light of the same, the authorization had been cancelled by the primary authority. As already referred to supra, before the 2nd respondent - the appellate authority, whatever the reasons may be, no proper opportunity had been given even as can be seen from the relevant portion of the order which already had been specified above. It is pertinent to note that the 1st respondent - Revisional Authority who is expected to record reasons had not adverted to any of the contentions raised by the writ petitioner and made a cryptic order. The quasi-judicial authorities are expected to record appropriate reasons while deciding matters of this nature. No doubt, the learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in T.EDUKONDALU v. R.D.O.1 and made certain submissions that when the order of cancellation of authorization of the primary authority had been confirmed even by the appellate authority, normally the Writ Court not to disturb such order. There may not be any quarrel relating to the said proposition that normally when the authorities had followed the procedure, applied the mind by giving reasonable opportunity to the parties and made orders, the Writ Court not to interfere. Further strong reliance was placed on M.SADASIVA SEKHAR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL2 wherein the learned Judge of this Court while dealing with Clause 3(4) of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, at paras 24, 29 and 31 observed as hereunder:- "The above sub-clause confers power on the appointing authority to suspend or cancel the authorization subject to conducting enquiry and recording reasons. The phrase "after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary" makes it plain that discretion is vested in the appointing authority as to the nature, method and manner of conducting enquiry as is deemed necessary. There can be no hard and fast rule that in every case of suspension or cancellation, the appointing authority should afford an opportunity of being heard to the Fair Price Shop Dealer (See M.P.Industries Ltd. V. Union of India (AIR 1966 S.C.671). No doubt, the word "enquiry" into the allegations against a dealer has a broad connotation and takes in its fold an opportunity of filing explanation to the parties and/or affording a right of hearing. No doubt, the word "enquiry" into the allegations against a dealer has a broad connotation and takes in its fold an opportunity of filing explanation to the parties and/or affording a right of hearing. Because the Legislature used the words "such enquiry as may be deemed necessary", we have to give a restricted meaning to the phrase and leave it to the appointing authority whether or not the Fair Price Shop Dealer should be heard. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and supply the words so as to make sub-clause (4) of Clause 3 read 'providing opportunity of being heard'. This conclusion also derives support from the various principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases discussed hereinabove and the same may be stated thus: (1) 'Personal hearing' is not considered as an incident of rule of audi alteram partem. A person is entitled to an opportunity of making a representation even if delegated legislation is silent on the same. The same is not, however, true with regard to affording a personal hearing to an aggrieved party. The law treats an opportunity to make a representation also as a personal hearing (See M.P.Industries Ltd. V. Union of India (AIR 1966 S.C.671) and Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 1 ); (2) When delegated legislation excludes 'personal hearing' it is not permissible for the Court to read into the rule 'an opportunity of being heard by the authority'; (3) When the rule itself says than an authority is vested with the power to conduct "such enquiry as deemed fit" the discretion is left to the authority as to what is the nature of enquiry. If the authority, as a part of such enquiry, intends to give an opportunity of being heard, it must be treated as a manifestation of exercise of discretion in the facts of a particular case and not as a general rule; (4) Clause 3(4) of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 does not require the appointing authority to afford an opportunity of being heard to the Fair Price Shop Dealer. However, if proposed action is both for cancellation/suspension as well as forfeiture of the deposit under Clause 3(2) of the Control Order, it is a case where the appointing authority compulsorily is required to afford an opportunity of making a representation as well as an opportunity of being heard; (5) In all cases where an enquiry is conducted under Clause 3(4) of the Control Order and where an opportunity of personal hearing is not given, the burden is on the dealer to plead and prove the prejudice caused to him by not giving a personal hearing. Illegality of the order cannot be readily presumed wherever no personal hearing was given (See State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.Sharma (AIR 1966 S.C., 1669); M.C.Mehta V Union of India (AIR 1999 S.C., 2583); and Aligarh Muslim University v Mansoor ali Khan (AIR 2000 S.C., 2783); (6) (a) In a case where a show cause notice is issued requiring submission of explanation and also affording personal hearing, if desired, and the authority fails to afford such opportunity, the impugned order has to be scrutinized by applying the test of prejudice; and (b) In a case where show cause notice is issued requiring submission of explanation and also affording personal hearing, if desired, and the aggrieved party fails to exercise such option for personal hearing, it should be deemed that he has waived such right of being heard (See State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.Sharma (AIR 1966 S.C., 1669). A reading of the show cause notice and the order passed by the RDO would support the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not giving an opportunity of oral hearing. It is true that if really he had been given an opportunity the petitioner would have explained the discrepancies pointed out in the show cause notice. When the show cause notice does not give details of the cardholders who received less quantities of Rice, certainly prejudice is caused to the petitioner by depriving the opportunity of oral hearing. The appellate authority, no doubt, afforded an opportunity to the Advocate representing the p. It was contended before the appellate authority that cancellation order was passed based on a perfunctory enquiry. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the 29 cardholders. The appellate authority dealt with this aspect in this following manner. The appellate authority, no doubt, afforded an opportunity to the Advocate representing the p. It was contended before the appellate authority that cancellation order was passed based on a perfunctory enquiry. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the 29 cardholders. The appellate authority dealt with this aspect in this following manner. .............................However, records reveal that the inspecting officer has verified 29 cardholders and found that the dealer had charged higher rates and issued lesser quantities and made false entries in the cards. Hence I find no merit in the argument of Advocate. The Advocate further argued that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the 29 cardholders. The fact is that trial conducted under the Act is summary and time required for summoning and cross-examination of 29 cardholders is forbidding. The Advocate has not submitted anything to cast doubts about the veracity of statement of 29 cardholders. Hence I find no merit in the argument of Advocate and appeal is dismissed. A reading of the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority would show that they relied on 29 ration cards in relation to which the petitioner committed irregularities. The petitioner was not given opportunity either by the MRO or the RDO to examine these cardholders. The prejudice caused to the petitioner is writ large. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appointing authority is required to give an oral hearing, in every case, cannot be accepted. Having regard to the show cause notice in this case, denying such opportunity of being heard, it must be held that prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Collector as well as respondents 2 and 3 are unsustainable. They are accordingly set aside. Having regard to the show cause notice in this case, denying such opportunity of being heard, it must be held that prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Collector as well as respondents 2 and 3 are unsustainable. They are accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the RDO to conduct a fresh enquiry giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." No doubt, the learned A.G.P. for Civil Supplies would contend that inasmuch as convincing reasons had been recorded by the Primary Authority, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, may be in the event of this Court being inclined to disturb the orders of the 1st and 2nd respondents, let the matter be remitted to the 2nd respondent for disposal of the matter afresh in accordance with law. Though, prima facie, this submission appears to be attractive, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the subject and references made by the Primary Authority, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, as specified supra, this Court is inclined to set aside the orders of the Primary Authority, Appellate Authority and also the Revisional Authority and remit the matter to the Primary Authority - the 3rd respondent herein, to furnish all the documents to the petitioner, on the strength of which the cancellation had been effected, give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, further obtaining any further explanation, which may be submitted in the light of the series of subsequent events, as on to this day and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the orders impugned of the 3rd respondent, 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent i.e., the Primary Authority, the Appellate Authority and also the Revisional Authority are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent to decide the matter afresh in the light of the views expressed by this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed as specified above. No order as to costs.