sTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No. 15157 of 2007 DATED: 29-01-2008 Between: Rudrala Venkateswarlu. ..Petitioner. and The Revenue Divisional Officer and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15157 of 2007 ORDER: Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings in Rc.No.1528/2004-B, dated 16.12.2004, issued by the first respondent, as confirmed by the second respondent, vide order, dated 24.03.2007 in ACD.Dis.No.8/2005-S7, and further confirmed by the third respondent in Revision Case No.21/2005-S7, dated 25.02.2007, and quash the said proceedings. 3. The petitioner stated that he was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of Mallavolu Village in the year 1988 and was supplying the commodities to the cardholders of his village without any complaint. While so, the Mandal Revenue Officer visited his shop on 19.09.2004 at about 7-00 p.m., and submitted a report to the first respondent alleging certain irregularities said to have been committed by him. His authorization was suspended by the first respondent pending enquiry and thereafter, enquiry was conducted by issuing a charge memo. It is stated that in all, five charges were alleged against him. The first charge is that he had not submitted the coupons for the month of August, 2004 to the office. The second charge is that he had not submitted the D.Ds. for 9/2004 up to 19.09.2004 and as such caused inconvenience to the cardholders. The third charge is that he had not produced coupons regarding PDS rice for Q.3.80 and K.oil 60 liters for the month of August, 2004 and a stock of 24 liters of K.oil is available as the ground balance. The fourth charge is that he had distributed SGRY rice to the beneficiaries in the villages of Pinnelli, Chennyapalem and Sri Rukminipuram, without prior permission. The last charge is that he had not distributed the MDM rice by the date of inspection. 4. It is further stated that the charges framed against the petitioner are all technical in nature. There was no complaint from any of the card holders that he had not distributed the commodities. It is not the case of the authorities that he had any pecuniary benefit by way of misusing the commodities or otherwise. All the allegations are false. The allegation that coupons for 8/04 were not produced to the authority, that SGRY rice was distributed in other villages without written instructions, that MDM rice were not distributed by the date of inspection are all technical in nature. It is not the case of respondents that he sold the commodities at excess price or got pecuniary benefit by misusing the stock. The other allegation is that for the month of September, 2004 he had not paid the amounts for D.Ds. in time. 5. It is further stated that so far as not submitting the coupons, he stated that the authorities have verified the registers and they were found in order. So far as the second charge is concerned, he was not able to pay the D.Ds. for the month of September, 2004 till the date of inspection as he suffered typhoid fever. To the third charge, which is similar to the first charge, the same explanation will apply. Insofar as the quantity of 24 liters of kerosene found in the shop was denied as the measurements were not done properly and the excess is to be counted in comparison to the total quantity sold giving the percentage of variation permissible. Even otherwise also the quantity is negligible and no motive is alleged and this is not a case of distributing lesser quantity to any person. It is also not found that the measures are not standard measures. So far as the fourth charge is concerned, the allegation is that the SGRY rice were distributed to the work taken up in other villagers without written order from the Mandal Revenue Officer. The letter given by the Mandal Revenue Inspector clearly indicates that he was instructed to give the said rice to the work done in the other villager. Insofar as the fifth charge is concerned, that mid-day meals rice will be delivered to the agency on 20th day of every month and that the agency will pick up the stock and he was in no way responsible for the non-delivery of the said rice and the inspection was prior to the date of delivery. 6. It is further stated that the inspection was done on a phone call received from some politician. The accusations are made for the sake of accusation. In fact, no deficiency pointing out the lapses are made out. The enquiring authority made allegations without properly stating the method, manner and the procedure followed in distributing the commodities. 7. It is also stated that in spite of his explanation, the first respondent cancelled his authorization and on appeal, the same was confirmed by the Joint Collector. The third respondent confirmed the orders of the lower authority taking the same view without carefully examining the same and the over all effect of the accusation with regard to running of the fair price shop. It is stated that even if the allegations are taken to be correct, they are all technical violations and on the basis of which the cancellation of authorization is unwarranted. The cancellation is due to change in political set up and at the instance of rival contenders through political force. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. On a careful examination of the orders, which had been questioned, this Court is of the considered opinion that from the nature of the charges, they appear to be technical in nature and even otherwise, while making an order of cancellation, the proportionate of the gravity of the charges, with which the fair price shop dealer had been charged with, also may have to be taken into consideration. This aspect was not considered by any of the authorities, and in the light of the nature of the orders, which had been made by the authorities concerned, this court is of the considered pinion that the impugned order of cancellation requires reconsideration at the hands of the first respondent, and accordingly, the orders made by the first respondent, second respondent and third respondent are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to reconsider the issue taking into consideration the nature of the charges and pass appropriate orders in this regard. 9. With the above extent, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA,J Dated: .01.2008 sj