ORDER : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of second respondent in D.Dis.C. 1/241/2018 dated 12.11.2018 in upholding the order of third respondent in appeal filed by the petitioner vide proceedings in D.Dis.C1/105/2018 dated 02.08.2018 confirming the orders of fourth respondent in his proceedings in D.Dis.B/5557/2017 dated 20.03.2018 cancelling the authorisation of petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 10, Ammagaripalle Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the rules contained in the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and more particularly violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently setting aside the said proceedings of second respondent and direct the petitioner to continue the aforesaid Fair Price Shop. 2. Heard Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 3. As can be seen, against the order of third respondent, the petitioner filed revision before the second respondent, who is the Collector, Chittoor. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that while the revision was pending petitioner's son who was aged 33 years died suddenly on 28.10.2018 due to cardiac arrest. The revision was posted before the second respondent on 10.11.2018. Since the petitioner was under severe bereavement, she could not physically attend before the second respondent and hence, her brother attended before the second respondent. The counsel for petitioner also could not be present due to some pressing urgency. The brother of petitioner apprised about the plight of the petitioner to second respondent and requested for adjournment. However, the second respondent without granting time passed an ex parte order confirming the order of third respondent and thereby the petitioner was severely prejudiced. Learned counsel thus prayed to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the second respondent and give an opportunity to the petitioner to represent her case through her counsel. 4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the writ petition arguing that the petitioner committed severe irregularities in the matter of conducting the Fair Price Shop in as much as her husband Kodandarami Reddy who was working as Village Revenue Officer was in fact running the Fair Price Shop as Benami for his wife. 4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the writ petition arguing that the petitioner committed severe irregularities in the matter of conducting the Fair Price Shop in as much as her husband Kodandarami Reddy who was working as Village Revenue Officer was in fact running the Fair Price Shop as Benami for his wife. As per relevant rules, if the nearest kith and kin of a person are working in the revenue department, he shall not be granted dealership. The petitioner and her husband have conceded this fact and played fraud on the revenue authorities. Further, on the date of inspection of the petitioner's shop, the vigilance authorities found that without using the EPOs machine, the petitioner and her husband were using prearranged 5 kgs, 10 kgs and 15 kgs rice bags to weigh the commodities and thereby cheating the ration card holders. The stock particulars were also not properly exhibited on the stock board and registers. Considering all these infirmities, all the authorities have cancelled the dealership of the petitioner and there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 6. Point: I have my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the revision was posted before second respondent on 20.10.2018, 03.11.2018 and 10.11.2018. On 10.11.2018, petitioner and her counsel were not present. The petitioner's brother alone was present and he informed about the death of the son of revision petitioner. The impugned order shows that, it appears, he requested the second respondent to set aside the orders of the lower Court. Except that he did not address the arguments on merits, obviously rightly because he was not the party to the proceedings and he was not expected to address arguments on merits. Then the second respondent passed the orders two days thereafter i.e., on 12.11.2018. In this background, under law though the second respondent pass the order on merits, it can be regarded only as an ex parte order. One of the principles of natural justice is audi alteram partem that means no man shall be condemned without being heard. Then the second respondent passed the orders two days thereafter i.e., on 12.11.2018. In this background, under law though the second respondent pass the order on merits, it can be regarded only as an ex parte order. One of the principles of natural justice is audi alteram partem that means no man shall be condemned without being heard. Unfortunately the petitioner's son died during the relevant period when the revision was coming up for hearing and therefore, the petitioner would not attend before the second respondent on 10.11.2018 and her counsel also could not attend for some or other reason. Therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to submit her case before the second respondent. In that view, the interest of justice requires that the impugned order can be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order in proceedings in D.Dis.C1/241/2018 dated 12.11.2018 passed by the second respondent are set aside and the matter is remitted to second respondent with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner and fix a date for hearing and upon hearing the petitioner and her counsel pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with law within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.