IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 25144 of 2003 BETWEEN: Dasari Ramanaiah, S/o. Venkayya F.P. Shop Dealer, P. Tekkellapadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist. Collector, Prakasam Dist. at Ongole 2 The Joint Collector, Prakasam Dist. at Ongole 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in D.Dis.CS2/994/2001 dated 12-9-2002 confirming the order of the 2nd and 3rd respondent passed in D.Dis.C2/3822/2000 dated 26-12-2000 and Rc.C/2236/1999 dated 23-5- 2000 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently restore the authorization in favour of the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer of P. Tekkellapadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TADDI.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer of P. Tekkellapadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District 20 years ago and since then he has been distributing the essential commodities to the satisfaction of all the cardholders. While so, the Circle Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department inspected the shop of the petitioner on 24.11.1999 alleging certain irregularities and initially the dealership was suspended and thereafter the show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the dealership shall not be cancelled for the irregularities that when compared with the stocks available with the book balance one quintal sugar was found excess and that the dealer was not maintaining true and correct accounts. 2. Petitioner further submits that he submitted an explanation dated 18.12.1999 explaining that one Malasani Venkateswarlu had collected 50 cards from the villagers and purchased sugar of the relevant cards i.e. 100 Kgs and went away stating that he would take that sugar afterwards, as such there, there was excess of one quintal sugar. 3. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was rightly disbelieved, as the said explanation cannot be found to be correct on the face of it. If really the said Venkateswarlu collected 50 cards, I am of the opinion that nobody can be allowed to purchase the sugar on behalf of 50 cardholders, as the sugar was supposed to be supplied to the cardholders alone. However, the said Venkateswarlu and the said 50 cards have not been produced before the enquiring authority, therefore, there cannot be any justification on the part of the petitioner in keeping one quintal of sugar in excess, as obviously, the excess sugar was kept for diverting into the black market instead of supplying the same to the cardholders. I am of the opinion that the said irregularity is a grave irregularity, as such, the Revenue Divisional Office rightly cancelled the dealership of the petitioner by impugned order dated 23.05.2000 against which the appeal filed before the Joint Collector was also rightly dismissed by order dated 26.12.2000 and against which the revision filed before the Collector and District Magistrate was also rightly dismissed by order dated 12.09.2002. There cannot be any further revision, therefore, the Commissioner, Civil Supplies, rightly rejected to entertain the revision by order dated 09.11.2002. As all the three authorities have concurrently confirmed the irregularities committed by the petitioner, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the orders impugned. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 24, 2008 DSK