THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4074 of 2006 ORDER: Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Katrimala Village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur District. In this writ petition, she has questioned order, dated 15.10.2005 passed by the second respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, in D.Dis.D1/CS/1713/2004, cancelling her fair price shop authorisation, and also order, dated 07.02.2006 passed by the first respondent – Joint Collector, Anantapur, in D.Dis.No.K4/ATP/1127/05. Based on the representation of the cardholders of Katrimala Village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur District, the second respondent/primary authority has called for a report from the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Guntakal. After submission of the report by the said authority, the second respondent has initiated proceedings to cancel the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner. Her authorisation was suspended and she filed appeal before the first respondent. Pursuant to the orders passed by the first respondent/appellate authority, the second respondent passed final order on 15.10.2005 in D.Dis.D1/CS/1713/2004, cancelling the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner. In appeal, the said order was confirmed by the first respondent vide order, dated 07.02.2006 in D.Dis.No.K4/ATP/1127/05. From a perusal of the orders passed by the first and second respondents, it appears, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, charges were framed with regard to non-production of Sales Registers for October, 2004, variation in the entries between the Sales and Stock Registers, not maintaining separate Stock and Sales Registers for Food For Work rice, not displaying the Price-cum-Stock Board, functioning only 2 or 3 days in a month and selling rice and kerosene oil at higher rates than prescribed. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation with regard to each of the charges. The primary authority cancelled her fair price shop authorisation vide his order, dated 15.10.2005, by recording a finding on most of the charges that the petitioner has not disproved the same. It is to be noticed that except one charge, most of the charges are with regard to maintenance of books. With regard to the charge that the petitioner has sold the essential commodities at higher prices than prescribed, though she denied the same, the primary authority has recorded a finding that she has not produced the statements of the cardholders to disprove it. Similar such finding is recorded with regard to other charges. When the charge is framed against the delinquent, it is for the authorities to record a finding based on the material available on record. But, only on the ground that the petitioner has not disproved the charges, it cannot be held that the charges framed against her are proved. Though the remedy of appeal, which is substantive in nature, is availed by the petitioner, the appellate authority by recording a similar finding that the petitioner failed to disprove the charges, confirmed the order of the second respondent vide his order, dated 07.02.2006. As much as the primary and appellate authorities have not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner with reference to the charges framed against her, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the said authorities in the impugned orders are perverse and it is a fit case to issue directions to the primary authority to re-consider the matter afresh by taking into account the material filed in support of the charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that after cancellation of fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner, temporary arrangement is made for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of Katrimala Village, Pamidi Mandal. For the aforesaid reasons, order, dated 15.10.2005 passed by the second respondent and also order, dated 07.02.2006, passed by the first respondent, are hereby set aside with the direction to the second respondent to consider the matter afresh by taking into account the material with reference to the charges framed against the petitioner and the explanation offered by her, to give her an opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the temporary arrangement, which exists as on today, shall be continued till appropriate final orders are passed by the second respondent. The writ petition is allowed with the directions and observations referred to above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni