ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order issued by the second respondent in Rc.No.711/2021-B dated 18.08.2022 in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner was issued authorization No.711/2021 dated 18.08.2022. Since then, he has been discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of the authorities and to the cardholders. 4. The Deputy Tahsildar and some other staff inspected the Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village on 19.03.2021 and drafted an inquiry report, alleging certain irregularities and registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Nuzendla dated 26.03.2021, the second respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner by order in Rc.No.711/2021-B dated 18.08.2022. 5. Respondent No.2 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet filed counter affidavit. It is submitted that, on 19.03.2021, the inspecting officials inspected the Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village, for which the petitioner is working as fair price dealer. They found variation of stock i.e. Sugar 64 packets and 8 Kg Red Gram Dal. That apart, the inspection officials have observed that the authorization of the petitioner has expired on 31.03.2020 and thereafter the petitioner has not renewed his authorization of Fair Price Shop No.39 of Murthijapuram Village, as required, which is in violation of Clauses 8(ii)(c) and 8(ii)(b) of the Control Order, 2018. Without possessing valid authorization, the petitioner mislead this Court by filing challana dated 31.03.2022 after completion of inspection, as if he possessed valid authorization, as such the petitioner has no right to continue as dealer. 6. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the ground stocks at subject shop have been seized under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act after drafting mediatornama and the petitioner refused to receive the same. Accordingly, it was served by way of affixture on the doors of his fair price shop in the presence of mediators. 7. Accordingly, it was served by way of affixture on the doors of his fair price shop in the presence of mediators. 7. It is submitted that, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.04.2021. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, authorization of the fair price shop maintained by the petitioner was cancelled vide proceedings Rc.No.711/2021-B dated 18.08.2022. It is further submitted that, the respondents conducted detailed enquiry in distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner before passing order of cancellation of authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner. After conducting enquiry/panchanama in the presence of mediators, panchanama copy was rejected by the petitioner on 15.06.2023 and thereafter, the disciplinary authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet issued notice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy against the order of cancellation. 8. During hearing, Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the second respondent did not conduct any enquiry, as required under Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (hereinafter referred as ‘Control Order, 2018’). Basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Nuzendla Mandal, the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioner even without communicating the same to the petitioner. The documents submitted by the petitioner were also not considered and no enquiry as conducted as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. Though there are no irregularities found regarding shop of the Murthijapuram Village for which the petitioner was originally granted authorization, the second respondent cancelled the authorization of the said shop, which is not valid and in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the second respondent did not conduct any enquiry, as required under Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. Basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Nuzendla Mandal, the impugned order was passed behind the behind the back of the petitioner even without communicating the same to the petitioner. The documents submitted by the petitioner were also not considered and no enquiry as conducted as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. Basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Nuzendla Mandal, the impugned order was passed behind the behind the back of the petitioner even without communicating the same to the petitioner. The documents submitted by the petitioner were also not considered and no enquiry as conducted as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018. Though there are no irregularities found in respect of the shop of the petitioner in Murthijapuram Village for which the petitioner was granted authorization, the second respondent cancelled the authorization of the said shop, which is not valid and in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally submitted that, the entire case is built on the un-communicated Mediatornama prepared by the Deputy Tahsildar, as such prayed to set-aside the impugned order dated Rc.711/2021-B dated 18.08.2022. 10. Per contra, Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would submit that the petitioner has not participated in the mediatornama/panchanama as per Clause 9(b) of the Control Order, 2018. Admittedly, the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer has expired on 31.03.2023. He further submits that, as per Clause 8(11)(c) of the Control Order, every authorized Fair Price Shop dealer shall apply for renewal of authorization one month before expiry of validity duly remitting an amount of Rs.500/- as fee for renewal of authorisation as prescribed and such application shall be disposed by the Appointing Authority on or before 31st of March. All the applications received for renewal of authorization beyond 28th/29th of February and authorizations for which applications were not received shall stand cancelled and the entire security deposit shall automatically be forfeited. All such cases shall be treated as clear vacancies and all those vacancies shall be filled in duly following the guidelines within a month. But, in the present case on hand, the petitioner’s authorization was not renewed after 31.03.2020, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for continuation as fair price shop dealer. 11. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was issued notice on 04.05.2021 and provided an opportunity of personal hearing, but, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not avail the same and he has not participated in the enquiry proceedings. 12. 11. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was issued notice on 04.05.2021 and provided an opportunity of personal hearing, but, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not avail the same and he has not participated in the enquiry proceedings. 12. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, even though the authorization of the petitioner has expired on 31.03.2020, before enquiry, he submitted an application seeking renewal of fair price shop dealership, as contemplated in the Control Order, 2018 and it is pending consideration. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the petitioner was continuing as fair price shop dealer without any interruption pending enquiry till the date of order of cancellation and even assuming for a moment that the authorization of the petitioner was expired, the respondents had been supplying the essential commodities for distribution for all these years since application of the petitioner is pending for renewal is under consideration and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, the fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) alleging variations in the stock, they seized the stock available in the shop pursuant to the drafted mediators report. The Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) who inspected the shop submitted a report before the second respondent, who is the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Framing a charge, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 14. Charge No.1 is that, the fair price shop dealer failed in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholder, which lead to shortgage of (-) 64 packets of Sugar and an excess stock of (+) 8 Kgs of Red Gram Dal, with reference to ground stocks without distributing to the cardholders, thus, he violated Clauses 20(1) and 12(3) of the Control Order, 2018. The dealer submitted that, the charge is not correct and the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) booked a false case against him under 6-A and submitted false report to the Joint Collector, Guntur and thus, the petitioner did not commit any irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. 15. The dealer submitted that, the charge is not correct and the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) booked a false case against him under 6-A and submitted false report to the Joint Collector, Guntur and thus, the petitioner did not commit any irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. 15. The second respondent came to conclusion that the explanation submitted by the dealer is not convincing and the charge framed against the petitioner was held proved and passed an order of cancellation of authorization of the petitioner. 16. A careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears, though the second respondent has issued show cause notice and considered the explanation of the petitioner, but, opportunity of personal hearing was not accorded to the petitioner and the second respondent also did not conduct proper enquiry, as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, which is extracted as under: (4) The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suomotu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause. 17. Proper enquiry was not conducted by the second respondent before passing the impugned order. In the operative portion of the impugned order in Rc.No.711/2021-B dated 18.08.2022, it is averred as extracted hereunder: “.......He also stated that the cardholders may be enquired before taking any action against him. The explanation submitted by the dealer is not believable. Since it is proved in the inquiry conducted by the Inspection authority in the 6-A case, the Authorization of Sri S. Ramaiah, the permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village, Nuzendla Mandal is hereby cancelled.” 18. On careful perusal of the operative portion of the impugned order, extracted above, it is clear that the second respondent is under the impression that he need not conduct independent enquiry, except considering the enquiry report of the Deputy Tahsildar, before passing disciplinary orders. The contention of the second respondent in the considered view of this Court is against the settled proposition of law and provisions of the Control Order, 2018. 19. It is the duty of the disciplinary authority to conduct independent enquiry in disciplinary proceedings and he has to apply his mind independently to pass final orders. The contention of the second respondent in the considered view of this Court is against the settled proposition of law and provisions of the Control Order, 2018. 19. It is the duty of the disciplinary authority to conduct independent enquiry in disciplinary proceedings and he has to apply his mind independently to pass final orders. While passing final order, the disciplinary authority ought to have afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the delinquent dealer and he has to record reasons for not getting convinced with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and to come to a conclusion to cancel the authorization of the petitioner. While issuing show cause notice, the second respondent shall furnish a copy of the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, which formed the basis of charge to the petitioner. On careful examination of the order impugned in this writ petition, all these essential ingredients are missing. In view of the same, the inaction of the respondents in not furnishing the enquiry report to the petitioner and not conducting detailed enquiry independently and not recording the reasons for not accepting the explanation of the petitioner vitiates the proceedings due to violation of principles of natural justice. 20. This Court in B. Manjula vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others : 2015 (4) ALT 572 , observed as extracted hereunder: “9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law discussed above was laid down by the Courts in the context of disciplinary proceedings against Government servants and it may not be possible to adhere to the same rigors of procedure in an enquiry against a fair price shop dealer. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that since an order of cancellation of fair price shop visits the dealer with adverse consequences, the appointing authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an enquiry. The enquiry need not be too elaborate as in the case of a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, but it shall follow the basic requirement of an enquiry which in my view must be as described infra. 10. An ‘enquiry’ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. 10. An ‘enquiry’ pre-supposes an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer to explain his/her case based on the records such as sales and stock registers. If need be, such enquiry must also include recording the sworn statement of the dealer and witnesses, if any, from his/her side. In cases where either card holders or other persons sent any complaint, they must also be examined in the presence of the dealer or his/her lawyer and the dealer shall be given an opportunity of cross- examining such persons. The licencing /disciplinary authority shall also supply to the dealer all the reports on which he is likely to place reliance to the detriment of the dealer. Unless the dealer has no explanation at all to offer, the licensing/disciplinary authority is bound to hold a detailed enquiry. 11. The experience of this Court reveals that the appointing authorities of fair price shop dealers are dispensing with the requirement of making personal enquiry by summoning the dealers. They are merely relying upon the reports sent by their subordinates i.e., Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars, behind the back of the dealers and resting their decisions solely upon those reports. This procedure is anathema to the concept of enquiry which otherwise means affording the dealer an opportunity of a fair hearing.” 21. It is settled law that, before passing any final order, which affects the interest of any party, opportunity of personal hearing has to be accorded. Admittedly, in this case, opportunity of personal hearing is not provided to the petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 22. In view of the same, as the Respondent No.2 has not followed the statutory mandated procedure, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is unsustainable under law and liable to be set-aside. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions: i. The order in Rc.No.711/2021-B on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District is setaside and authorization of the petitioner is restored; ii. The second respondent is directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0744039 of Murthijapuram Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District, as usual. 24. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. 25. There shall be no order as to costs.