IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.20005 of 2006 Between: Y.Sreedevi. … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its District Collector (Civil Supplies), Nellore District, Nellore and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad. Counsel for the respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings No.Rc.E.195/2003, dated 15-4-2006, of the District Collector (Civil Supplies), Nellore-respondent No.1, whereby he has confirmed the orders of respondents 2 and 3. I have heard Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Gurramkonda village of Ozili Mandal, Nellore District. On 22-11-2001 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ozili, along with Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer conducted inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop, during which certain irregularities were allegedly detected. Basing on the report given by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur-respondent No.3 issued a charge memo to the petitioner with four charges. For the present purpose it is sufficient if Charge No.1, which is substantive in nature, is reproduced: “Charge No.1: It was noticed by the Inspecting Officer that there is a shortage of 13436 Kgs., of rice or 13.436 MTs., meant for FFW and PDS, when verified with reference to physical stock and the accounts of the stocks released by MLS Point, Naidupet. Thus she misused the shortage stocks for her unlawful gains diverting them into black market by violating Clause 4 of A.P. Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1973 replaced as APS PDS Control Order, 2001”. After receiving the explanation from the petitioner, respondent No.3, vide: his order dated 6-4-2002 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Joint Collector- respondent No.2 having been dismissed, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No.1, who, by his order dated 15-4-2006, confirmed the orders of respondents 2 and 3. At the hearing, Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that all the hierarchical authorities have failed to consider the explanation of the petitioner from proper perspective and erroneously held that the petitioner has indulged in diversion of 13.436 MTs., of rice meant for Food For Work and Public Distribution System (FFW and PDS). I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. As could be seen from Charge No.1, reproduced above, the gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that she misused the stocks for her unlawful gains by diverting them to black market. In his order respondent No.3 has stated that on credible information received by him, he, along with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Naidupet, has raided on Sri Rama Krishna Rice, Flour and Decorticator Mill on the intervening night of 21/22-11-2001 and noticed seven hamalies refilling the rice @ 50 Kgs., per bag by reversing the bags earmarked for the FCI (Levy) rice. Their enquiries revealed that the said rice was issued to the petitioner’s fair price shop under FFW Programme; and that the said rice was weighed by respondent No.3 in the presence of the panchayatdars. In her explanation the petitioner has stated that while she has taken delivery of the said rice from the MLS godown and was transporting the same, rain intervened; on account of which the rice was taken to the said mill. This explanation was not believed by the respondents. While rejecting this explanation, respondent No.3 observed that the distance between MLS godown and the rice mill was only 20 yards and that; therefore, there was no possibility of the petitioner taking the rice to the mill instead of bringing it back to the MLS godown even if there was rain. In my opinion, the respondents have not committed any error in concluding that the petitioner has diverted the rice meant for FFW and PDS into black market. Their conclusion is supported by the fact that the rice was being handled at the mill. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will only consider the decision making process and not examine the orders passed by the administrative/quasi judicial bodies as an appellate Court does. Unless the approach of the respondents is perverse or the orders suffer from irrationality or patent illegality or procedural impropriety, this Court will not interfere with the merits of the decision taken by such authorities. (See: Tata Cellular V. Union of India[1] a n d All India Railway Recruitment Board Vs. K.Shyam Kumar[2]) . Having carefully considered the facts of the case and the reasons contained in the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3, I do not find that the conclusion drawn by the respondents that the petitioner has committed serious malfeasance by diverting the rice into black market falls in any of the above mentioned grounds of judicial review. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. ---------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25-8-2010 MNR [1]) (1994) 6 SCC 651 [2]) (2010) 6 SCC 614.