ORDER
C.V.N. Sastri, J.
1. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer. On 6-2-1995 a show-cause-notice was issued to her by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanapet, mentioning the following irregularities:
(1) Dealer is not present in the shop at the time of supply.
(2) Distributing 15 Kgs. by noting 20 Kgs. in the cards.
(3) Blackmarketing balance rice.
(4) Not maintaining register properly.
2. On 14-2-1995, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the said allegations. With regard to the second charge she stated that out of the total number of 357 cards allotted to her shop, 20 cards were eliminated as bogus cards and the supply of essential commodities was limited to the remaining 337 cards only. After some time, on representation made by those 20 card-holders, their cards were restored, but the supply of essential commodities was not proportionately increased and thereby she was obliged to distribute only 15 Kgs. instead of 20 Kgs. to the cardholders.
3. After considering her explanation, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order dated 2-5-1995, cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodangal, to make alternative arrangements for supply of essential commodities to the card-holders till regular dealer is appointed in the place of the petitioner. In the said order the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the following charges are established against the petitioner:
(1) The dealer has not distributed essential commodities to 15 cardholders of Bimili Thanda continuously for 4 months from December.
(2) It is established during the enquiry only 15 Kgs. to the card-holders noting 20 Kg. on the card.
(3) The dealer should possess a register of card-holders containing details of cards and he must show to inspecting authorities whenever demanded. Non-furnishing of card-holders register by the dealer to the authorities when demanded is illegal.
(4) As per the enquiry report dated 7-1-95 of Deputy Tahsildar (ROR) the rice was not supplied from May, 1994 to December, 1994 to 13 Lambada card-holders as per their eligibility and sugar was not at all supplied.
4. It is evident from this that charges 1, 3 and 4 listed in the order dated 9-5-1995 are new charges which are not mentioned in the show-cause-notice dated 6-2-1995 issued to the petitioner. Questioning the order dated 9-5-1995, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar who by his order dated 25-10-1995 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of cancellation of the authorisation of the petitioner are illegal and unsustainable as the same are based on totally new grounds which are not mentioned in the show-cause-notice and as the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to make her representation with regard to the said charges.
6. I see considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In his order dated 25-10-1995, the Joint Collector concedes that new grounds were mentioned in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer which do not form part of the show-cause-notice. But he characterised it only as a technical violation. He confirmed the order by observing that the record of enquiry by the Deputy Tahsildar clearly shows that the dealer’s husband was very much present during the enquiry and that the allegation relating to the non-distribution to Bhimli Thanda people was one of the charges into which the enquiry was conducted. I am of the view that the learned Joint Collector has misdirected himself in thinking that it is only a technical violation inasmuch as the order of cancellation is based on three new grounds which are not at all mentioned in the show-cause-notice. I am satisfied that the same cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanapet, for passing orders afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make her representation in respect of all the charges. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that so far no permanent appointment is made in the place of the petitioner. Inasmuch as the impugned orders are quashed, the petitioner may be permitted to distribute the scheduled commodities till final orders are passed by the Revenue Division Officer after fresh enquiry. No costs.