THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 27949 of 2008 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner has questioned the order of the Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, dated 26.12.2007, issued in Rc.B1/377/2007, by which his hawkers’ licence was cancelled. He also questioned the order of the appellate authority, dated 10.11.2008, issued in DCS Proc.No.E2/1159/2008, confirming the order of the primary authority. 2. Petitioner is a kerosene hawker in Velpucherla village, Musunuru mandal, Krishna District. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada has submitted a report to the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District, stating that he has made inspection into the premises of the petitioner and found that one K.Srinivasa Rao was doing business as a be name on the licence held by the petitioner. When the book balance was compared with the ground balance, there was variation of 212 lts of kerosene oil in excess. In view of the allegations made against the petitioner and based on the report sent by the 3rd respondent- Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada, cancellation proceedings were initiated, alleging variation in the stocks and that the petitioner is running the business through bename by name K.Srinivasarao and he has not supplied the cardholders the entire quantity as per their eligibility i.e. 4 lts and not maintained true and correct accounts and thus indulged in clandestine business in kerosene oil by diverting the same to the black market. Petitioner was called upon to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled. Petitioner filed his explanation to the show cause notice. In the explanation, mainly it is the case of the petitioner that the excess quantity of 212 lts of kerosene, which was available with him, belongs to 106 card holders as they have taken only 2 to 3 lts on 4 lts coupon. Thus there is a variation of 212 lts. 3. The primary authority disbelieved the explanation offered by the petitioner and stated that the petitioner has not supplied 4 lts as per their entitlement and short supplied the product to the cardholders and as such, recorded a finding that the petitioner is not running the shop but he is running through one K.Srinivasa Rao as a bename and therefore cancelled the licence of the petitioner and the said order is also confirmed by the appellate authority by his order, dated 10.11.2008. 4. In this Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the cardholders have not taken 4 lts of kerosene on their coupons, the stock belonging to them, in that view of the matter, cannot be treated as an excess stock. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself is doing business and the allegation that the petitioner running the shop through one K.Srinivasarao is without any basis. 5. I have perused the order of the primary authority as well as the appellate authority. When 2 to 3 lts were supplied to the cardholders, there is no reason for entering supply of 4 lts in the books of accounts. It may be true that the coupons were issued for 4 lts. When the petitioner has supplied 2 to 3 lts of kerosene to each card holder, he ought to have made the entry in the books of account to that extent only. Further it is noticed that during enquiry petitioner himself was examined and he did not explain the details of his monthly allotment amount paid to the wholesale dealer for getting kerosene and the name of the bank from where the demand draft is taken. In the absence of furnishing such details and also taking into account the fact that K.Srinivasarao was found when the inspection was made, the primary authority has recorded a finding that the petitioner was running the shop through bename i.e. through K.Srinivasarao but not the petitioner. In view of the findings recorded by the primary authority and also as confirmed by the appellate authority, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, confirmed by the appellate authority in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY ,J 22nd November, 2011. Tsy