THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24796 of 2010 DT.24.01.2011 Between: D.Neetha … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 20.09.2010, in proceedings No.B3/4757/2010, of respondent No.3, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. I have heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.71 of Nizamabad Urban. On the basis of the inspection conducted by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer and the report submitted by him, respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice, dated 31.08.2010, to the petitioner, wherein it was alleged that during the time of inspection of the fair price shop, the petitioner was not found in the shop and that the same was being run by Sri D.Venkateshwar Rao, s/o Amba Rao Deshmukh, r/o Saraswathinagar, Nizamabad. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why her fair price shop dealership shall not be cancelled. In reply to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation, wherein it is stated that Sri D.Venkateshwar Rao is no other than her husband and that therefore, she was taking his assistance in running the shop. She has further stated that on the date of inspection, she was away from Nizamabad and that her husband was looking after the shop for 15 days during her absence. She has, therefore, denied the allegation that her shop was being run by a benami person. Not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.3 has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization under the impugned order. In the counter affidavit, respondent No.3 has relied on the statement, dated 17.08.2010, of D.Venkateshwar Rao, purportedly recorded by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer during his inspection. Respondent No.3 has pleaded that in the said statement, the petitioner’s husband has admitted that one Sri Arun has been running the petitioner’s fair price shop during her absence, that the petitioner remains in the shop for one or two days in a month and that during the rest of the time, the said Arun is running the shop. Neither in the show-cause notice nor in the impugned order, any reference to the above-mentioned statement purportedly made by the petitioner’s husband has been made. The law is well settled that administrative authorities cannot seek to sustain the validity of the orders passed by them by supplementing reasons by way of affidavits filed by them in Courts (See Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhanda Bhanji[1] and Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others[2]). Clause-2 of Annexure-I to the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Order’) envisages that every authorized fair price shop dealer shall only conduct the business and he/she shall be held responsible for all the acts of commissions or omissions in running the shop with the assistance of any family member. It further envisages that if the fair price shop is found to be runn by a person other than the person authorized, such person shall be treated as benami and the authorization shall be cancelled by the competent authority. As noted above, in the show-cause notice, it is the specific case of respondent No.3 that Sri D.Venkateshwar Rao was found running the shop. However, in the impugned order, the name of Sri Arun was also added. The fact that Sri D.Venkateshwar Rao is the husband of the petitioner is not in dispute. The whole object behind prescribing the condition that the authorized dealer alone should run the shop is to prevent the transfer of authorizations unauthorisedly to third parties for unlawful gain. In such cases, there is every justification for treating running of fair price shops by persons other than the authorized dealer as a benami transaction. But, in the instant case, undisputedly the person, who was found running the shop, is no other than the husband of the authorized dealer. The provisions of Clause-2 of Annexure-I of the Order require to be construed in an objective and rational manner and it would be anomalous to treat the husband of the authorized dealer as a benami person. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and the same is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date:24.01.2011 VGB [1] AIR (39) 1952 SC 16 [2] AIR 1978 SC 851