N.BHASKARAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Dealer of Fair Price Shop No.31 of Pathagunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, in the year 2009 and her authorization is valid up to 31.03.2016. While so, basing on a report dated 23.03.2015 of the 5th respondent that the petitioner was not supplying the essential commodities to the cardholders properly and committing irregularities in maintaining the fair price shop, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03.05.2015 to the petitioner calling upon her to submit explanation, for which the petitioner submitted explanation on 18.05.2015. Being dissatisfied with the same, the 4th respondent cancelled the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings D.Dis.B/3140/2015, dated 06.06.2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17852 of 2015 before this Court. On the ground that there is a provision for appeal, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 19.06.2015 giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of the 4th respondent. Pursuant to which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The appeal was dismissed by the 3rd respondent on 16.10.2015, while confirming the orders of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent. By an order, dated 20.01.2016, the 2nd respondent dismissed the revision, while confirming the orders of the 3rd and 4th respondents. The same is questioned in this writ petition.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that as the 2nd respondent posted the case for hearing on 30.01.2016 at 11.00 am at his Chamber at Chittoor, the petitioner went there along with her counsel, but on the same day, the D.S.O., Chittoor, informed the petitioner that the 2nd respondent went to Tirupati on official work and the petitioner was directed to attend the Office of the R.D.O. at Tirupati. The counsel, who is appearing before the revisional authority, refused to proceed to Tirupathi, as the distance between Chittoor and Tirupati is about 80 kms. and he has to attend other cases at Chittoor. Having no other alternative, she rushed to Tirupathi, attended the hearing and made a request for adjournment of the case on the ground that her advocate is not present. However, her request was not acceded to, and ultimately, she submitted that she was not involved in any irregularities. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent reserved the case and passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of hearing.