R.SANDHYA REDDY Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR (FAC) MULUGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Utter lack of comprehension on the part of respondent No.1 has lead to passing of Order, dated 26-09-2012, in Proceeding No.G/I/321/2007, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer of shop No.19, Parsi Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Warangal District. Respondent No.1 has issued proceeding, dated 06-09-2012, cancelling the petitioner's temporary authorisation. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed WP.No.29287 of 2012. This Court, while allowing the said Writ Petition on the ground that the order of cancellation was not preceded by any notice, made the following observations:

(3.) This Court has, however, left respondent No.3 free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. After the disposal of the said Writ Petition, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned proceeding, a perusal of which would show that the same is styled as 'Notice'. However, respondent No.1 has straight away cancelled the petitioner's authorisation once again calling for explanation from the petitioner. This action of respondent No.1 betrays complete lack of knowledge on his part regarding distinction between a notice and an order. He failed to see that while a notice is issued with a view to give an opportunity to the party likely to be affected by an adverse order proposed to be passed, an order is passed after considering the objections, if any, received from such person to the notice so given. The only distinction between Orders, dated 06-09-2012, and 26-09-2012 passed by respondent No.1 is that the former was termed as 'Order' and the latter as 'Notice'. Barring the same, the contents of both the proceedings are almost same. Such approach on the part of respondent No.1 is not expected from him and especially when this Court has corrected his action once in WP.No.29287 of 2012.