ORDER : The petitioner, who is a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer, filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings dated 25.07.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the 5th respondent was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1062036 of Thotakanuma Village, Venkatagiri Kota Mandal, Chittoor District terminating the temporary Fair Price Shop dealer by name Smt. Suseelamma W/o.K.N.Balasundaram, on temporary arrangement, without issuing notice and without following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘Control Order, 2018’), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1062036 of Thotakanuma Village, Venkatagiri Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. She was also issued authorization and the same is valid upto 31.03.2020. Since then, she has been running the shop as per the instructions issued by the authorities from time to time and distributing the essential commodities without any complaint. While things stood thus, on 12.07.2019, the revenue authorities inspected her shop and verified all the records and stock position. But, the authorities had not found any irregularities in running the shop and no variations were found in respect of the stock available in the shop and e-Pos machine. However, the authorities are not releasing essential commodities to her shop without any suspension or cancellation of her authorization. Hence, she filed W.P.No.12119 of 2019 and the same was disposed of on 11.09.2019 directing the respondent-authorities to supply the essential commodities to her shop as long as her authorization is in force. Then, the 5th respondent filed petitions seeking to implead and recall the order dated 11.09.2019 and the same were served on her counsel on 27.09.2019. Then only, she came to know about the impugned termination order passed by the 2nd respondent. Challenging the impugned order dated 25.07.2019, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that no show-cause notice was issued, no opportunity was given and no enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. 3. Then only, she came to know about the impugned termination order passed by the 2nd respondent. Challenging the impugned order dated 25.07.2019, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that no show-cause notice was issued, no opportunity was given and no enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that when the revenue authorities inspected the shop on 12.07.2019, the petitioner’s mother was distributing the essential commodities in the capacity of nominee of Fair Price Shop dealer and at that time, some of the cardholders were also complained to them that the Fair Price Shop dealer is not coming to the shop since three months and her mother Suseelamma alone is distributing the essential commodities without maintaining the time prescribed by the Government. A preliminary report was submitted by the Inspecting authorities stating that the dealer was absent since long time and recommended for alternate arrangements for providing temporary dealer instead of continuing the nominee and as such, the inspecting authorities have not examined the other issues of subject shop. As per the orders of this Court dated 11.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.12119 of 2019, the petitioner is continuing as Fair Price Shop dealer. The petitioner filed the said writ petition suppressing the impugned termination order dated 25.07.2019. Based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, V.Kota, the Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor considering the major irregularities as the Fair Price Shop dealer is not running the shop in the village after getting married and has thrown the entire burden of shop on her mother, which caused much hardship to the cardholders who are the entire stakeholders of the Public distribution system, passed the order duly terminating the authorization of the Fair Price Shop dealer by mentioning the name of the nominee by name Smt. Suseelamma as Fair Price Shop dealer instead of petitioner by name K.N.Mohana Priya D/o.K.N.Balasundaran, due to the reason that only nominee was running the shop and also due to error and oversight and accordingly the intention of the Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor is to make an immediate alternate arrangements for smooth distribution of essential commodities only. The petitioner, after getting married and residing in Bangalore city since April, 2019 and as such she has neglected the maintenance of Fair Price Shop. The petitioner, after getting married and residing in Bangalore city since April, 2019 and as such she has neglected the maintenance of Fair Price Shop. Based on the report of the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle, the Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor, issued a show-cause notice to the dealer on 19.10.2019. On considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 22.10.2019, by proceedings dated 23.10.2019, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled. 4. Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a perusal of the impugned order shows that no reference was made to any notice being served on the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The impugned order was passed terminating the temporary dealer by name Smt. Suseelamma W/o.K.N.Balasundaram in respect of Shop No.1062036 of Thotakanuma Village, V.Kota Mandal and the shop was allotted to Chowdeswari Mahila Mandali represented by its Member by name Smt. G.Kavitha (5th respondent). The impugned order was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, while reiterating the averments of the counter, submits that in view of the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization by proceedings dated 23.10.2019, the order impugned is not in existence and the writ petition has become infructuous as the present cancellation order was passed by issuing show-cause notice and by considering the explanation as per the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Sri C.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, while reiterating the averments of the counter filed by the 5th respondent, would contend that the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.12119 of 2019 suppressing the impugned order dated 25.07.2019, whereby the temporary authorization granted to Smt. Suseelamma, nominee of the petitioner, was terminated and the 5th respondent was appointed as a temporary dealer. By virtue of the interim order passed in the said writ petition on 11.09.2019, the petitioner is continuing as a Fair Price Shop dealer. By virtue of the interim order passed in the said writ petition on 11.09.2019, the petitioner is continuing as a Fair Price Shop dealer. Based on the report submitted by the Collector (Civil Supplies) stating that the petitioner is not residing in the village after getting married and not distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders and her nominee Smt. Suseelamma is distributing the essential commodities irregularly contravening the provisions of the Control Order, 2018, the 5th respondent was appointed as a temporary dealer pending permanent appointment duly cancelling the temporary authorization given to the petitioner’s nominee Smt. Suseelamma, the mother of the petitioner. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 23.10.2019, after issuance of show-cause notice and considering the explanation of the petitioner, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled and the petitioner cannot be continued as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No. 1062036 of Thotakanuma Village. There is no irregularity in appointing the 5th respondent as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer by duly terminating the authorization of the petitioner. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the appointment of 5th respondent as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1062036 of Thotakanuma Village pending permanent appointment by issuing notification, is contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. The 5th respondent was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer without cancelling the petitioner’s permanent Fair Price Shop authorization as per the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the cases of 1) B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015(4) ALT 572 , 2) Pidikiti Sailaja Vs. State of A.P., 2015(2) ALT 667 and 3) C.Durga Srinivasa Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015(6) ALD 359 , wherein this Court held that cancellation of Fair Price Shop dealer should be preceded by show-cause notice and explanation, by conducting enquiry, by proving the charges and by giving opportunity to the dealer to defend in the enquiry. By considering the entire evidence available on record and by reasoned order in contravention of the provisions of law, the authorization of the Fair Price Shop dealer is to be terminated or cancelled. 8. By considering the entire evidence available on record and by reasoned order in contravention of the provisions of law, the authorization of the Fair Price Shop dealer is to be terminated or cancelled. 8. A reading of the impugned order clearly reveals that only to accommodate the 5th respondent, for the alleged irregularities referred in the impugned order, the temporary dealership of Smt. Suseelamma was terminated without preceded by any notice or enquiry contrary to the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. But, in fact, no such temporary dealership was given to Smt. Suseelamma being the mother of the petitioner and she was appointed as a nominee of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.16, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 17.06.2013. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 07.11.2019, set aside the impugned order. But, the 5th respondent preferred Writ Appeal No.491 of 2019. By order dated 05.02.2020, the said writ appeal was allowed setting aside the order dated 07.11.2019 as the same was passed without issuing any notice and opportunity to the 5th respondent and the matter was remanded back to this Court. On restoration, the writ petition is taken up for hearing again. 9. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order was passed appointing the 5th respondent as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer without cancelling the permanent Fair Price Shop authorization given to the petitioner and even if any irregularities or illegalities are committed contravening the provisions of the Control Order, 2018, the authorities have to conduct enquiry as per law and on suspension or cancellation only, the question of appointing the temporary dealership arises, but not otherwise. This Court has repeatedly held in catena of cases, such as the cases 1 to 3 referred above, that cancellation of Fair Price Shop dealership shall be preceded by notice and enquiry, by giving opportunity to the dealer. 10. But, in the case on hand, the 5th respondent was straightaway appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer without termination or cancellation of the petitioner’s permanent Fair Price Shop dealership, is found to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and the law laid down by this Court in the cases 1 to 3 referred above. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2019. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2019. However, it is left open to the petitioner to question the proceedings issued by the Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor vide order dated 23.10.2019, cancelling the authorization of the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition. No order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.