ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….. to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in FPSAP No.02/0220/46, dated 28.06.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and pass such other order….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as the dealer for FP Shop No.94, VT Agraharam Area, B.C. Colony, 25th Ward, Vizianagaram Town by the 4th respondent in the year 2011. The Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector and Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar came from 5th respondent office, inspected petitioner’s shop and went away without informing anything to the petitioner. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the 5th respondent had registered a case against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but no show cause notice was issued to her till date. 3. The 4th respondent appointed the 6th respondent as temporary dealer for the Shop No.94, Vizianagaram without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner’s dealership is not suspended by the authorities till date and no order are passed by the respondent authorities either suspending or removing the petitioner as a dealer till date. The petitioner submitted two representations on 06.08.2018 and 17.04.2019 to the respondents 2 to 5 to restore her dealership, but the respondents 2 to 5 did not pass any orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner. This Court in W.P.No.10970 of 2019 directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said orders, the 2nd respondent passed orders for restoration of her dealership to the Shop No.24 in RC.No.249/2019-G1. 4. The 6th respondent filed W.P.No.18412 of 2019 questioning the restoration orders and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition giving liberty to the 6th respondent to challenge the restoration orders by filing appeal/revision before the concerned authority. The 6th respondent filed appeal before the 2nd respondent to set aside the restoration orders, dated 04.11.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal impugned in this Writ Petition. The 6th respondent filed appeal before the 2nd respondent to set aside the restoration orders, dated 04.11.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal impugned in this Writ Petition. The main ground urged before this Court is that the order passed by the 2nd respondent in appeal is illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore issuance of such direction is contrary to law and requested to set aside the order passed by this Court, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary. 5. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit admitting everything including passing of order impugned in this Writ Petition, exparte order passed by the District Collector under Control Order, 2018 and therefore this Court cannot interfere with the said order while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and requested to dismiss the same. 6. Whereas, the 5th respondent filed independent counter admitting about filing of various proceedings including filing of earlier Writ Petitions and direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.10970 of 2019 so also the Writ Petition No.18412 of 2019 directing the 6th respondent to file appeal before the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, an appeal was filed and the same was disposed of, thereby, there is no illegality and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. During hearing, Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the main petition. Accordingly, an appeal was filed and the same was disposed of, thereby, there is no illegality and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. During hearing, Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the main petition. The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer, but on account of alleged irregularities committed in distribution of the essential commodities in violation of the Control Order, 2018 the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on the report of the Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector and Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar and on the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 without passing any order of suspension or termination of authorization of the petitioner by exercising power under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order, 2008 appointed the 6th respondent as temporary dealer, thereafter, the petitioner made two representations on 06.08.2018 and 17.04.2019 with a request to supply essential commodities for distribution to the cardholders allotted to the shop, but they were not disposed of, consequently the petitioner was forced to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.10970 of 2019, whereby this Court directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. Based on the direction issued by this Court, the Collector (CS), Vizianagaram issued proceedings in Rc.No.249/2019-G1 dated Nil.11.2019, the operative portion of the said proceedings is as follows:- “The Revenue Divisional Officer further submitted that in Revenue Divisional Office no file belongs to above issue is pending which was already informed by way of endorsement to Smt. Abothula Appalakondamma in RTI Act petition. It is submitted that the High Court has issued orders to the Collector (CS) in W.P.No.10970 of 2019 within a period from the date of receipt of order. Now the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram submitted report no records available in office to finalize disciplinary case for suitable orders.” 8. It is submitted that the High Court has issued orders to the Collector (CS) in W.P.No.10970 of 2019 within a period from the date of receipt of order. Now the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram submitted report no records available in office to finalize disciplinary case for suitable orders.” 8. Thus, it is clear from the observation of the 3rd respondent that no record is available with regard to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but still the 3rd respondent passed the following order:- “In view of the above the authorization of Smt.Abothula Appalakondamma FP Shop dealer Shop No.0281094 is hereby restored and a penalty of Rs.7,500/- was imposed on the dealer of F.P. Shop No.0281094. The above dealer is hereby directed to remit the penalty amount of Rs.7,500/- under the Head of Account 1456-Civil Supplies, 800-Other receipts, 81-Other items. The applicant has also to submit application in Form-I along with two passport size photos for issue of fresh authorization under APTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.” 9. Though the order was passed by the 3rd respondent, the same is challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.18412 of 2019, but this Court was pleased to pass order on 23.01.2020 permitting the 6th respondent herein to file appeal before the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the 6th respondent filed appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent passed impugned order. 10. The main ground urged in the appeal before the 2nd respondent is that the 3rd respondent did not afford any opportunity to the 6th respondent and no enquiry was conducted before passing such an order and therefore the same is illegal and requested to set aside the same. “Accordingly notice has been issued to both parties with a direction to attend before the District Collector to hear the case. Both are present and submitted their explanations. Perused the records it is noticed that the Collector (CS) has restored the authorization of Smt.Abothula Appala Kondamma without any opportunity to the present dealer Sri Padagala Ramana and also not conducted any enquiry on the report of Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, dated 29.09.2019 in which it was mentioned that the CSDT and CSRI of Tahsildar’s office have inspected her FP Shop in the year 2014 and they informed that a case under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act has been booked. But, they have not filed before the competent authority. The Collector (CS) has to conduct the enquiry on non-filing of 6-A case before restoration of authorization. In view of the circumstances explained above, the orders of Collector (CS) issued vide RC.No.249/2019/G1, dated 04.11.2019 is set aside and with the above findings the appeal is disposed off.” 11. Thus, it is clear from the operative portion of the order the specific contention raised in the appeal before the 2nd respondent is that the 3rd respondent did not afford any opportunity to the 6th respondent before passing the order of restoration of dealership of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent could have remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent to afford an opportunity, instead of remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent received explanation of the petitioner and allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is illegal and contrary to the settled procedure. Setting aside order of 3rd respondent on the basis of explanation submitted before the appellate authority is a serious and gross illegality committed by the 2nd respondent and at best the 2nd respondent ought to have remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent to afford an opportunity to both parties and conduct an independent enquiry and on the basis of report if any filed under Clause 5(5) of Control Order, 2008 and pass appropriate orders. 12. The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind. The power of suspension under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015 (6) ALD 359 , the order is bereft of any reasons, thereby the impugned order itself is illegal and contrary to law. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015 (6) ALD 359 , the order is bereft of any reasons, thereby the impugned order itself is illegal and contrary to law. He also further contended that no enquiry was conducted and thereby the impugned order is liable to be set aside in view of the law declared by this Court in K.Nirmala vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAWS (APH) 2012 (8) 93 and Thyrumala Setty Phanindra, S/o Bhaskara Rao vs. District Collector, LAWS (APH) 2013 (4) 36, on the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments he requested to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 14. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents supported impugned order in all respects while specifically contending that the 2nd respondent afforded opportunity to the petitioner at every stage and thereby the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. The contention of the petitioner is in three fold. The first contention is that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted, and it is in violation of principle laid down in Smt.Godasu Thirupalamma, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (3) ALD 104 . 16. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two judgments in K.Nirmala’s case (referred supra) and in Thyrumala Setty Phanindra’s case (referred supra). 17. The judgment in Smt.Godasu Thirupalamma’s case (referred supra) is almost identical to the facts of the present case, there also an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing order to appear personally and submit explanation. Accordingly, explanation was submitted, but on receipt of explanation, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no enquiry in the eye of law and thereby the respondent authorities violated the procedure prescribed for conducting enquiry. Similar to the question in this case. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on another judgment of Single Judge of this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015(4) ALT 572 . Similar to the question in this case. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on another judgment of Single Judge of this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015(4) ALT 572 . In view of the law declared in above judgments, the respondents herein did not afford any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to adduce evidence, but based on the explanation, show cause notice and other material concluded that the explanation is not convincing and thereby passed the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 19. If the principles laid down in the above judgments are applied to the present facts of case, the order of cancellation of temporary authorization of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 20. Similarly, in K.Nirmala’s case (referred (2) above) the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:- “the order does not contain any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the stay application and secondly, the allegations on which the petitioner’s authorization was suspended are too trivial. This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. An order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till conclusion of the enquiry and passing of final orders by respondent in W.P.No.34264 to 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.” 21. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till conclusion of the enquiry and passing of final orders by respondent in W.P.No.34264 to 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.” 21. Same is reiterated in another judgment in Thyrumala Setty’s case (referred (3) above) wherein it is held as follows:- “Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorization has to be exercised. Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering of the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorization has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where, no suspension is warranted as, it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints, from any cardholders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No.2 in suspending the petitioner’s authorization cannot be sustained.” 22. Even otherwise in one of the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19266 of 2019, dated 02.12.2019 an identical question was considered by this Court and held in Para 7 of the judgment as follows:- “7. Even otherwise in one of the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19266 of 2019, dated 02.12.2019 an identical question was considered by this Court and held in Para 7 of the judgment as follows:- “7. 2nd respondent is a quasi judicial authority and required to adjudicate the disputes under Control Order, 2018. 2nd respondent being a quasi judicial authority has to pass a reasoned order, strictly adhering to the requirements under Control Order, 2018. Time and again the Courts held that though the administrative authorities exercising quasi judicial powers, are bound to record its reasons. In exercise of power of judicial review, the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, works contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers [ (2010) 4 SCC 785 ] had an occasion to deal with an unreasoned order and made certain observations. In exercise of power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. To subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. The Apex Court also referred various judgments in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co., of India Ltd. v. Union of India and another [ AIR 1976 SC 1785 ], Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [ (1979) 2 SCC 368 ] and other judgments in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and others [ (1987) 2 SCC 222 ], Chabungbambohal Singh v. Union of India [1995 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 83] and Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India [ (1998) 2 SCC 242 ], concluded that the absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority or a Court or administrative authority is mandatory. In the absence of reasons, the Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India can set aside the order impugned in the writ petition.” 23. Applying the principle laid down in the above judgments to the present case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 24. In view of my foregoing discussion, the impugned order is hereby set aside while remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent with a direction to afford opportunity to both parties and conduct an independent enquiry and if any report is submitted for initiation of disciplinary proceedings to pass appropriate order under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order, 2008. 25. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed.