THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 27948 of 2008 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner has questioned the order of the Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, dated 26.12.2007, issued in Rc.B1/378/2007, by which his hawkers’ licence was cancelled. He also questioned the order of the appellate authority, dated 06.11.2008, issued in DCS Proc.No.E2/1158/2007, confirming the order of the primary authority. 2. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada, has submitted a report to the Joint Collector, stating that when the inspection was made into the premises of the petitioner, who is a kerosene dealer at Nuzvid, on 20.06.2007, they have noticed certain variations in the stocks. It is alleged that there is excess stock of 300 lts of kerosene when the ground balance was compared with the book balance. In view of the said report and allegations made against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District has initiated cancellation proceedings in Rc.B1/378/2007. In the cancellation proceedings, it is alleged that there is no valid explanation for the excess quantity of 300 lts, which was available on the date of inspection and that the petitioner has distributed PDS kerosene to the card holders @ 2 to 3 lts to each card holder instead of 4 lts as prescribed by the Government; he has not produced the hawkers’ licence at the time of inspection; he has not exhibited the price-cum-quantum board at the business premises and he has also not maintained the true and correct accounts and thus indulged in clandestine business by diverting the PDS kerosene to the black market. It is alleged that the said allegations constitute contravention of Clause 12 (i) (ii), 13, 20 of the A.P.Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. Petitioner was called upon to show cause why the licence granted to him should not be cancelled. Petitioner has filed explanation to the show cause notice issued by the respondents. 3. Mainly, it was the defence of the petitioner before the licensing authority that though the coupons were supplied to the card holders to the extent of their full eligibility of 4 lts for each cardholder, due to financial constraints they have not taken delivery to the extent of their entitlement of 4 lts. It is stated that as one coupon was given, by receiving the said coupon he has supplied the quantity as requested by the cardholders. With the aforesaid explanation, he explained the existence of excess quantity of 300 lts of kerosene, which was available on the date of inspection. 4. The primary authority by recording a finding that there is no valid and reasonable explanation offered by the petitioner, has ordered cancellation of licence of the petitioner by order, dated 26.12.2007 in Rc.B1/378/2007. As against the same, petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent-Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad. The appellate authority also confirmed the order of cancellation. 5. In this writ petition, the main defence of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the cardholders have not taken the delivery of 4 lts, as per their entitlement, petitioner cannot be held liable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inasmuch as the coupons were given for 4 lts each to the card holders, entries were made based on the said coupons but only 2 lts kerosene was supplied to 150 card holders and as such the excess quantity of kerosene exists in his premises. 6. It is very difficult to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the card holders have taken delivery of less than 4 lts, there is no reason to record supply of 4 lts in the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner. It may be true that the full eligibility of a card holder is 4 lts, but if the card holder has taken lesser quantity than 4 lts, it is obligatory on the part of the licencee to record delivery of the quantity actually delivered to the cardholder but not based on the coupons, which were issued to the card holders. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the cardholders have given their statement, stating that on their own accord they did not take delivery of 4 lts as per their eligibility but that itself would not come to the rescue of the petitioner having regard to the allegations made against him. If the card holders have not taken delivery of the entire quantity of their eligibility, there is no reason to record delivery of 4 lts against supply to the cardholders. The very fact is that though the actual quantity of 4 lts was not supplied to each of the cardholders, such entries were made in the register and the excess stock was diverted to the black market as alleged in the impugned order. 7. In view of the sufficient and valid reasons recorded by the primary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, warranting interference in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY ,J 22nd November, 2011. Tsy