THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22944 OF 2006 DATED:27-9-2011 Between: Kum. C. Vijaya Lakshmi … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22944 OF 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, dt.23.10.2006 issued in proceedings No.G/1461/2006 by which the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled in exercise of power under Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of shop No.2 of Pullur Village, Manapadu Mandal, in Mahabubnagar District. She was granted the said authorization in 2003, and ever since statedly she has been continuing as dealer without any complaint. On 19.8.2006 the petitioner was issued show cause notice by the respondent framing two charges, which read as under: 1. That the F.P. Shop dealer Kum. Vijayalakxmi without intimation or obtaining prior permission either from the MRO, Manopad, or from the R.D.O., Gadwal for the two months i.e., May, June, 2006 causing much inconvenience to the officials and to the cardholders in remittance of D.Ds., distribution of E.Cs., etc. Moreover, she failed to apply leave for the above period violating the conditions of Authorization under Clause 5(5) of APSC (RDCS) Order, 2001. 2. That the F.P. Shop dealer did not attend the monthly F.P. Shop dealers meeting held on 6.7.2006 and on 7.8.2006 at Mandal headquarters. She violated the instructions of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar issued through the Mandal Revenue Officers concerned.” On the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has filed her explanation on 28.8.2006. A copy of the explanation, which is in Telugu, is placed on record along with a translated copy in English. In the explanation offered by the petitioner it is stated that due to ill-health she was not in the Village during the relevant period and as per the advice of the Doctors in Hyderabad, she had stayed in her relatives’ house in Hyderabad by taking treatment. Observing that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing, her authorization was suspended by the respondent vide his proceedings No.G/1461/2006 dt.12.9.2006. Subsequently, a further charge memo dt.19.10.2006 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent, framing two charges which read as under: 1. “As per the medical certificate issued by Dy. Civil Surgeon, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, which is produced by the dealer, that she is medically fit for duty (working) from 1-7-2006. But she has not attended the meeting of dealers conducted on 6-7-2006 and 7-8- 2006. That clearly shows that she is not interested to work as dealer and not following the instructions of Government issued from time to time. 2. That she is habituated to leave the village without prior intimation to officials. The act of the dealer is causing much inconvenience to the public and to Officials also to make alternate arrangements for public distribution.” The petitioner has filed further explanation dated 20.9.2006 stating that because of ill-health again she went to Hyderabad for treatment and hence she could not attend the dealers meetings. In spite of the same observing that the petitioner wilfully avoided to attend the dealers meetings and habituated to leave the village without informing the officials, the impugned order is passed cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. At the stage of admission, this Court on 6.11.2006 has granted interim order suspending the order of the respondent dt.23.10.2006 in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner is being continued as dealer and functioning as such. I have perused the show cause notice, the explanation offered by the petitioner and also the impugned order. So far as charge that the petitioner is habituated to leave the village without prior permission to the officials is concerned, it is very vague and the petitioner has denied the same and no finding is recorded by the respondent. Even with reference to the charge relating to absence of the petitioner during the Months of May and June 2006, a valid explanation is filed giving reasons for her absence. In spite of the same, mainly on the ground that her absence at the relevant point of time, which is due to her ill-health, was not supported by a medical certificate of a doctor, the impugned order is passed. When the petitioner was appointed in the year 2003 and has been continuing since then and that she has stated in her explanation that due to ill-health again she went to Hyderabad and as per the advice of the doctors she stayed in Hyderabad in her relative’s house by taking treatment, there is no reason for not accepting the said explanation offered by her. In view of the nature of the allegations, which are properly explained by the petitioner and in the absence of a valid finding recorded in support of the allegations, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dt.23.10.2006 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, in proceedings No.G/1461/2006 is set aside. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be careful in future and see that the card holders are not put to inconvenience because of her unauthorized absence. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27.9.2011 bnr