IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.7140 OF 2008 Date:15-02-2011 Between:- D.Thejomayanandam .. Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and two others. .. Respondents ORDER:- Aggrieved by the cancellation of his authorization as the fair price shop dealer of Aroor Village, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. The said cancellation of authorization was effected by the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, ‘R.D.O.’), Tirupathi under order dated 26-10-2007, confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector, Chittoor, by order dated 28-02-2008. 2. This Court, by interim order dated 02-04-2008, suspended the operation of the impugned proceedings pending further orders. The said interim order was made absolute on 15-09-2010 and the vacate application filed by the respondents was dismissed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as the fair price shop dealer of Aroor village about four years prior to institution of this writ petition. While so, basing upon a report said to have been submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short, ‘M.R.O.’), Sathyavedu on 16-08- 2005, the R.D.O., Tirupathi, initiated proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of his authorization. The order dated 26-10-2007 passed by the R.D.O., Tirupathi reflects that on the basis of the report dated 16-08-2005, four charges were framed against the petitioner. After considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 22-10-2007, the said authority cancelled the petitioner’s authorization as a fair price shop dealer. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor. As many as eighteen grounds were urged by him in support of his appeal. One of the grounds was that he was not furnished a copy of the report dated 16-08-2005 submitted by the M.R.O., Sathyavedu, which was the foundation for the case against him. The appellate authority, in his order dated 28-02- 2008, after extracting the brief history of the case, charges and grounds of appeal, generally summed up that the petitioner had not obtained signatures of card holders as a token of proper distribution of commodities, that some of the signatures were forged, that he was not maintaining records and was not distributing commodities to the poor people and was harassing them. He therefore confirmed the order under appeal and consequently, the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. 4. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, took note of the fact that though the petitioner had a revisional remedy available to him under the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2001, sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner for filing a writ petition circumventing the said remedy. 5. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the charges framed against his client under charge Nos.1 and 2 were self contradictory. Charge No.1 was with regard to the alleged failure of the petitioner in producing the stock register at the time of inspection by the M.R.O., Sathyavedu. Charge No.2 related to the alleged variation of stocks found during the inspection with reference to the sales register and the ground balance. This Court finds merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that these charges are contradictory. Without the stock register, the M.R.O., Sathyavedu could not have detected variations in the stock. The sales register would not by itself indicate the position of the opening stock facilitating the detection of any variations. These two charges therefore run counter to each other. The appellate authority did not deal with this aspect at all. Further, the summary disposal of the appeal by way of a cryptic order without dealing with any of the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner left a lot to be desired. Pertinent to note, the petitioner had specifically raised the issue of the M.R.O’s report dated 16-08-2005 not being furnished to him. As this document formed the very basis of the case against the petitioner, he was entitled to be put on notice about its contents. The appellate authority however chose to ignore this aspect altogether. 6. Viewed from any angle, the orders of the primary and the appellate authorities cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 26-10-2007 passed by the R.D.O., Tirupathi cancelling the petitioner’s authorization as the fair price shop dealer of Aroor Village, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District and also the order dated 28-02-2008 passed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor confirming the said cancellation. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15th February, 2011 AMD