THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26024 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner questioned the validity of order bearing Rc.M.No.481/2006, dated 31.05.2006, passed by the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District, cancelling the fair price shop authorisation held by the petitioner, and also order bearing Rc.CS.3/198/2006, dated 05.01.2007, passed by the first respondent – Joint Collector, Kurnool. The petitioner was the fair price shop dealer of Sulthanpuram Village, Revenue Division of Adoni, Kurnool District. By issuing a show cause notice, dated 18.05.2006, proceedings were initiated against her by the primary authority/second respondent herein for cancellation of her fair price shop authorisation. In the said show cause notice, charges framed against the petitioner, were to the effect that she has lifted 1.70 Qtls of sugar for the month of February, 2006 but she diverted the said stock to the black market; she is not having valid authorisation to run the Fair Price Shop; she is selling kerosene oil at Rs.10/- per litre instead of Rs.9.50 ps as fixed by the Government, and she is issuing less quantity of kerosene oil i.e. only 2 litres for white cardholders instead of 3 litres. On the aforesaid charges, explanation was called for from the petitioner. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner filed explanation on 23.05.2006 before the primary authority. However, the second respondent by order, dated 31.05.2006, by merely recording a finding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing, cancelled the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the appellate authority/first respondent, who in turn, by order, dated 05.01.2007, by recording a finding that the petitioner was not running the fair price shop by following the guidelines issued in the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the Control Order’), confirmed the order, dated 31.05.2006, passed by the second respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. When the matter was called on an earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to verify whether any other person is appointed on permanent basis in the place of the petitioner. Today, it is reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that no other person is appointed on permanent basis but some temporary arrangement was made for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. A perusal of the order, dated 31.05.2006, passed by the second respondent indicates that no single reason was recorded for cancelling the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner. Though certain charges were framed in the show cause notice with regard to misuse of sugar, selling of kerosene oil at excess rate and not supplying the required quantity of essential commodities to the cardholders as per the guidelines, in spite of filing explanation by the petitioner denying such charges, without recording any finding thereon, simply on the ground that the explanation filed by the petitioner is not convincing, the impugned order of cancellation was passed by the second respondent. It is to be noticed that at the time when the cancellation order was passed, the Control Order was in force. As per the provisions contained in the said Control Order, the primary authority was empowered to cancel the authorisation only for the reasons to be recorded in writing. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any reason for cancellation of fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner, the order, dated 31.05.2006, passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained. I have also perused the copy of the order, dated 05.01.2007, passed by the first respondent. It indicates that the appellate authority vaguely recorded a finding that the petitioner misused the sugar and failed to run the fair price shop but he did not advert to the charges framed against the petitioner with reference to the explanation offered by her on 23.05.2006. In the absence of any reasons recorded by the primary authority while passing the order, dated 31.05.2006, and as the appellate authority in the order, dated 05.01.2007, has not considered the charges framed against the petitioner with reference to the explanation offered by her, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition and remit the matter for fresh consideration by the second respondent. In that view of the matter, the order, dated 31.05.2006, passed by the second respondent and also the order, dated 05.01.2007, passed by the first respondent, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file additional explanation to the show cause notice, dated 18.05.2006, within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. Further, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 18.05.2006, and the explanation, dated 23.05.2006, as referred to in the 3rd reference in the order, dated 31.05.2006, including the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th SEPTEMBER, 2010. kvni