HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17181 of 2007 Date : 15.11.2011 Between : R.V.Ramanamma. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, Srikakulam & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17181 of 2007 ORDER : The petitioner is authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Borigivalasa village of Narsannapet Mandal in Srikakulam District. Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Narsannapet, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, has initiated proceedings for cancellation of authorization granted to the petitioner, on the following charges : (1) the petitioner has mis-used 3.96 Kgs of PDS rice and 262.5 litres of kerosene oil. (2) the petitioner failed to display the price-cum- stock board in the premises of fair price shop. (3) the petitioner is running the fair price shop in benami name; and (4) the petitioner has not been maintaining the sales and stock register properly. On the aforesaid allegations, by recording a finding that the petitioner has not filed his explanation inspite of giving opportunity, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam has passed the order, dated 01.11.2005, in proceedings No.2202/204/H, cancelling the authorisation granted to the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, who has rejected the appeal by order dated 23.09.2006 and the said order is also confirmed by the revisional authority/District Collector, Srikakulam, by order dated 22.05.2007, issued in Proceedings D.Dis.No.205/2007/S2. In this case, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and in the absence of recording any finding on the charges framed against him, the respondents ought not to have cancelled his authorization. I have perused the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the Joint Collector, Srikakulam and also the order of the revisional authority/Collector, Srikakulam District. In this case, it is to be seen that the charges framed against the petitioner are not specific and also are not in detail. Though there is an allegation of mis-use of 3.96 kgs of PDS rice and 262.5 litres of kerosene, there is no indication in the charges as to in what way such commodities are mis-used. Similarly, though there is an allegation of running the shop through benami, no particulars of such benami person are given in the charges. The other charges are also vague and they merely state that the stock registers were not properly maintained. Before the primary authority, petitioner has not filed any explanation, but however, with specific and detailed grounds, when the petitioner has approached the appellate and revisional authorities, even the said authorities also did not consider the matter with reference to the charges. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal mainly relying on the para-wise remarks sent by the primary authority. When an appeal is preferred against the order passed by the primary authority, such appeal has to be considered with reference to the grounds in appeal, but not merely based on the para-wise remarks sent by the authority, whose order is under challenge before the appellate authority. Even the revisional authority has dismissed the revision on the ground that the petitioner did not adduce evidence to rebut the charges. It is to be noticed that when allegations are made, against a dealer, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to see that sufficient material is there in proof of charges framed against such dealer. By merely recording a finding that the petitioner has not adduced evidence to rebut the charges, the revision petition should not have been dismissed. As the respondents have not considered the matter with due seriousness as required, and in the absence of any explanation filed by the petitioner before the primary authority, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of cancellation as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and remit the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, for fresh consideration. It is open to the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to issue supplementary show cause notice detailing the charges framed against the petitioner, and by giving further time to the petitioner for filing his explanation, order should be passed by considering such explanation. As it is stated that in view of the impugned order of cancellation temporary arrangements are made, I further direct the respondents to continue the same arrangement till appropriate final orders are passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, pursuant to this order. Subject to the directions referred above, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th November 2011 ajr