ORDER : T.C.D.SEKHARM, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the 4 th respondent, where under the authorization of the petitioner is cancelled alleging certain irregularities against her. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer on 17.04.2025 for Fair Price Shop No.1259041 of Gurrapukonda Village, Madakasira Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District erstwhile Ananthapur District. It is her further case that she is distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. While so, on 15.05.2025, the 5th respondent, Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner and found shortage of stock, thereafter the stock was seized and the same was handed over to Village Revenue Officer for safe custody, and a report was sent to the 4 th respondent to in initiate action against the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the report dated 15.05.2025, furnished by the 5th respondent, a show cause notice dated 29.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why her authorization shall not be cancelled. It is specifically stated in the said show cause notice asking the petitioner to attend for enquiry to be conducted on 05.06.2025. Upon receipt of said notice, the petitioner claims that she submitted explanation on 03.06.2025 to the 4 th respondent. Without considering the said explanation dated 03.06.2025 and without affording opportunity of being heard, the 4th respondent passed the order impugned, whereunder he cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that in show cause notice dated 15.05.2025, the petitioner was asked to attend for enquiry on 05.06.2025. He would further submit that, though the petitioner submitted explanation on 03.05.2025, without conducting any enquiry and without considering the explanation, the 4 th respondent passed the order impugned. He would further submit that as per clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018, the appointing authority 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. 5. He would further submit that in the instant case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, the 4 th respondent did not conduct any enquiry as contemplated under the said clause. 5. He would further submit that in the instant case, while cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, the 4 th respondent did not conduct any enquiry as contemplated under the said clause. He would further submit that, though the enquiry was to be conducted on 05.06.2025, the impugned order came to be passed, without considering the objections dated 03.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner and without affording opportunity of being heard. He would further submit that, no enquiry was conducted on 05.06.2025. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would strenuously contend that, on perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the petitioner herself was physically present before the 4 th respondent on 03.06.2025, on which date the petitioner was heard, and thereafter the impugned was passed. 7. It is further stated that the enquiry was conducted on 03.06.2025 by the 4 th respondent and the same was informed to the petitioner through the Tahsildar concerned, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared on 03.06.2025 for the enquiry. He would further submit that the same is also observed in the impugned, therefore the petitioner cannot be plead that, no enquiry was conducted. 8. Having considering the submissions of the counsel on either side, it is clear that the enquiry was to be conducted on 05.06.2025. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that the same was preponed to 03.06.2025, nothing is placed on record to show that the 4th respondent preponed the enquiry to 03.06.2025. In the absence of any material on record, the contention of the respondents cannot be countenanced, merely it is observed as such in the impugned order. 9. Further, as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner, as per Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018, the appointing authority has to conduct enquiry before passing any order. As can be seen from the record, it is clear that no such enquiry was undertaken in the matter by the 4 th respondent. Apart from the same, whenever any action is to be initiated against the errant dealer, it is incumbent for the respondent authorities to adhere to the procedure contemplated under law. As can be seen from the record, it is clear that no such enquiry was undertaken in the matter by the 4 th respondent. Apart from the same, whenever any action is to be initiated against the errant dealer, it is incumbent for the respondent authorities to adhere to the procedure contemplated under law. In the instant case on hand as noted supra, nothing is placed on record to show that the enquiry is preponed to 03.06.2025, thereby an inference can be drawn that, no enquiry was conducted while passing the impugned order. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the order impugned is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. It is needless to mention that, the 4 th respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner by intimating the date of enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the matter after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.