THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26144 OF 2008 Dated: 21-09-2011 Between: G. Sangaiah ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy and three others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26144 OF 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 14-08-2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy Division at Sanga Reddy, the 3rd respondent herein in proceedings No.B2/349/2006 which was confirmed by the appellate authority – the Joint Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy, the 2nd respondent herein by order dated 23-04-2008 in proceedings No. CSA/10/A/2007 and further confirmed by the revisional authority – the District Collector, Medak District, the 1st respondent herein by order dated 30-09-2008 in proceedings No.CSA/1/Rev/2008. The petitioner was appointed as the fair price shop dealer of Bachepally Village of Kalher Mandal, Medak District in the year 1999. On receipt of certain representations from the villagers of Bachepally Village, proceedings were initiated against him alleging that he has committed certain illegalities while functioning as the fair price shop dealer. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon explanation from him as to why his authorisation should not be cancelled alleging that he has not maintained the true and correct accounts and diverted PDS rice and kerosene to the black market; sold kerosene at Rs.10 per litre instead of Rs.9.50 per litre; that he has not distributed PDS rice to the cardholders for the months of January and February, 2006; that he supplied one kilogram of rice less to the cardholders under Anthyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) scheme and has closed the fair price shop for certain time without prior permission. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 25-05-2007. Being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent by order dated 14-08-2007 cancelled his authorisation. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent which was also dismissed and he was also not successful before the revisional authority in the revision preferred by him before the 1st respondent. Hence, the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he has given complaint against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat alleging that he has sold away 108 quintals of rice pertaining to SCRY scheme by drawing the same directly from the Civil Supplies Department even without executing any work and as the Sarpanch developed grudge against him got filed certain complaints based upon which the impugned order is passed. It is stated in the affidavit that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not considered while passing the impugned order. Though the writ petition is of the year 2008, no counter affidavit is filed controverting the allegations made by the petitioner. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri S.R. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed recording findings against the petitioner without even considering the explanation submitted by him and the findings so recorded cannot constitute valid reasons to cancel the authorisation granted to the petitioner. It is further contended that even the appellate and revisional authorities in a routine manner dismissed the appeal and the revision without appreciating the grounds raised by him. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that in view of serious allegations against the petitioner and in view of dismissal of the appeal and the revisions filed by the petitioner, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the vacancy in question is not filled in view of the pendency of the writ petition and the commodities are being distributed to the cardholders by the Village Revenue Officer of Bachepally. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, it is clear that though the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, the explanation submitted by him was not considered while recording findings for cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner. With regard to the first charge, the petitioner has denied the allegation that he is not maintaining correct accounts and merely a finding is recorded that he failed to maintain correct accounts without giving any details of incorrect entries said to have been maintained by him. Similarly with regard to the allegation that the petitioner sold kerosene at Rs.10/- per litre instead of Rs.9.50/- per litre though the petitioner has denied the same categorically, without mentioning the name of any cardholder, it is merely stated that some cardholders complained that kerosene was sold at higher rates. With regard to supply of PDS rice during the months of January and February, 2006, it is specifically replied by the petitioner that he has distributed the commodities for the months of January and February, 2006 and submitted the distribution registers in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer and after verification only, the Mandal Reveneu Officer has issued release order for the next month. In spite of such an explanation submitted by the petitioner, a finding is recorded that he failed to distribute the PDS rice for the said months. Similarly on all other charges also, the 3rd respondent has considered the explanation and recorded the findings based on vague allegations and basing on the material which did not constitute part of the enquiry in the enquiry proceedings initiated by him. As per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 unless valid reasons are recorded in support of the findings, the Revenue Divisional Officer is not empowered to cancel the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer. In the case on hand, the reasons recorded by the 3rd respondent for cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner are vague, incorrect and not valid. Similarly, the appellate and revisional authorities have also not adverted to the allegations in detail and simply dismissed the appeal and the revision stating that the records are verified and they are in agreement with the view taken by the 3rd respondent. In view of the same, it is a fit case for setting aside the order of cancellation as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the fact that the vacancy in question is not filled as stated by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, it is a fit case to set aside the order of cancellation and restore the authorisation of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14-08-2007 passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.B2/349/2006 is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to restore the authorisation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to enable him to distribute essential commodities to the cardholders of Bachepally Village, Kalheer Mandal, Medak District. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21-09-2011 ks