HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25775 of 2006 Date : 29.09.2011 Between : Ramavarapu Desinga Raju. …..Petitioner And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), East Godavari District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25775 of 2006 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, a fair price shop dealer and resident of Kuthukuluru village of Anaparthi Mandal in East Godavari District, has questioned the order of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, dated 8th October 2004, issued in Ref.E/2503/2004, by which, the authorization held by the petitioner under the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, is cancelled. There were complaints against the petitioner by the cardholders alleging that he was illegally collecting Rs.5/- towards each gunny bag and that he was also not supplying proper quantity of rice to the cardholders. On the said complaint, two charges were framed against the petitioner, which read as under : “1. The authorized dealer has not run the F.P.Shop No.27 of Kuthukuluru village of Anaparthi Mandal and Sri Sathi Venkata Panasa Rama Reddy is being run the F.P.Shop as benami dealer.” 2. The authorized dealer has not followed the instructions issued by the higher authorities and collected Rs.5/- and less distribution of 12 Kgs. rice to the ILS beneficiaries in Kuthukuluru village.” On filing explanation by the petitioner, dis-satisfying with the same, respondents have passed orders cancelling the authorization of petitioner by recording a finding that the petitioner is running the shop through benami and that one Sri Sathi Venkata Panasa Rama Reddy is running the shop on behalf of petitioner. It is also recorded that the petitioner has unauthorisedly collected Rs.5/- per gunny bag and he has short supplied the rice to the tune of 12 to 24 kgs, to 17 cardholders. Though the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal and revision before the appellate and revisional authorities as provided under the provisions of the Control Order before the Joint Collector and Collector respectively, he was unsuccessful in the appeal as well as revision. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents have passed the order of cancellation mechanically, without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. I have perused the copy of the order passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. A perusal of the said order shows that on the allegation that the petitioner was running the shop through benami, a finding is recorded that the petitioner was not running the shop but one Sri Sathi Venkata Panasa Rama Reddy was running the shop, as such, the said charge is held proved against the petitioner. It is further recorded in the said order that the charges viz., collecting Rs.5/- per gunny bag and short supply of rice to 17 beneficiaries, were also proved in the inquiry. Even the appellate and revisional authorities have examined the allegations levelled against the petitioner and having satisfied that correct findings are recorded by the primary authority, dismissed the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the primary authority as well as the appellate and revisional authorities, it cannot be said that the respondent- authorities have passed the impugned order without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. In view of the reasoned order passed by the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer as confirmed by both the appellate and revisional authorities, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th September 2011 ajr