THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24793 of 2010 DT.24.01.2011 Between: Ragetla Sambaiah … 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 Y.Neelakanta Reddy For Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondent: 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.B3/4760/2010, of respondent No.3, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. I have heard Sri Y.Neelakanta Reddy, 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.55 of Nizamabad Urban. On 18.08.2010, his shop was inspected by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer and it was found during the inspection that one Sri K.Ashok was running the fair price shop. Following the report submitted by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice, dated 31.08.2010, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 06.09.2010, wherein he has stated that as he is aged about 60 years, his son has been assisting him in running the shop and that as he was suffering from loose motions and fever on the date of inspection, he could not be available in the shop at the time of inspection. Respondent No.3 has, however, cancelled the authorization by treating the petitioner’s son as a benami person. 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 run 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. In the instant case, it is not the case of respondent No.3 that Sri K.Ashok, who was found running the shop, is not the son of the petitioner as pleaded by the latter. A son is always a part of the family unless there is evidence to show that there was a partition in the family and the son was living separately from the father. 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 gain. In such cases, there is every justification for treating running of fair price shops by persons other than the authorized dealer as a part of benami transaction. But, in the instant case, undisputedly the person, who was found running the shop, is no other than the son of the authorized dealer. The expression “if the FP shop/Nominated retailer/Hawker is found to be run by a person other than the authorized” in Clause-2(1)(a) of Annexure-I of the Order requires to be construed in an objective and rational manner and it would be anomalous to treat the son 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 accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date:24.01.2011 VGB