IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14353 of 2006 Between: Shri N. Narasimhulu, S/o. Penchalaiah, R/o. Indluru (V), Penagalur Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District. 5 The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar (C.S.)/ Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District. 6 B. Hemalatha, W/o. Ravi, R/o. Sathapalli, H/o. Indluru Penagalur Mandal, Kadapa District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 13-05-2006 of respondent No.1. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Indluru Village, Penagalur Mandal. On receipt of a complaint against him from the villagers, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Rajampet, Kadapa District inspected his shop and submitted a report on 04-10-2004, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not distributed 8.24 qunitals of rice meant for public distribution, 3.50 quintals of AAY rice and 270 liters of kerosene oil for the month of September, 2004 and diverted the said stock to black market with mala fide intention. Acting on the said report, respondent No.3 suspended the petitioner’s licence and issued show cause notice dated 14-10-2004 calling for the petitioner’s explanation to the charges framed against him. The following are the two charges framed against the petitioner. “Charge No.1: That the F.P Shop dealer has not distributed a quantity of 8.84 Qtls of PDS rice, 3.50 Qtls of AAY rice and 270 liters of kerosene oil for the month of 9/2004 and diverted the stocks to black market with malafide intention. Charge No.2: That the F.P shop dealer is doing malpractices and diverting the undistributed stocks to the black market.” After calling for the explanation from the petitioner and considering the same, respondent No.3 passed order on 18-12-2004, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed by him by order dated 20-07-2005. A revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order also met the same fate with its dismissal by respondent No.1 by his order dated 13-05-2006. This order is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, Smt Kalpana Ekbote, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced two contentions, namely; (1) respondent No.1 has not given proper reasons in disposing of the revision petition and (2) the petitioner was denied furnishing of relevant documents and that therefore, the orders passed by the respondents suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel, it is no doubt true that elaborate reasons were not given by respondent No.1. However, a perusal of the order passed by him shows that he has referred, in detail, to the charges framed against the petitioner; the explanation furnished by the petitioner; the findings rendered by the primary and appellate authorities and also the grounds urged by the petitioner before him. Respondent No.1, in his order, stated that since there was variation in the quantity of rice and kerosene oil, and the petitioner failed to produce coupons based on which he claimed to have sold the commodities, the charges were held proved. Though brief, the order passed by respondent No.1 who agreed with the concurrent findings of the two authorities below him contained cogent reasons for his not interfering with the said orders of the lower authorities. Therefore, I do not find merit in this contention of the learned counsel. With regard to the second contention of the learned counsel, in support of her contention, she invited the Court’s attention to Ground No.9 of the grounds urged before the appellate authority and extracted by him, in his order dated 20-07-2007. The said ground reads as under. “The learned Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have furnished the records to the appellant on which he is depending to pass orders. No such records are furnished to the respondent, which is mandatory.” In my considered view, the above extracted ground is too vague. The petitioner has not specified as to the details of the record required by him. Such a vague ground cannot be countenanced to hold that respondent No.3 has violated the principles of natural justice. Apart from the findings rendered by all the three authorities concurrently, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is categorically mentioned that on verification of coupons, the following variations were noticed. Commodity Quantity lifted in quintals Quantity distributed as per coupons (in quintals) Variation PDS Rice 61.08 5.84 8.24 AAY Rice 16.10 12.60 3.50 K.Oil 800 liters 530 liters 270 liters Therefore, the above fact clearly proved that the petitioner’s misconduct in running the fair price shop. Since the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is exercised for undertaking judicial review of the orders passed by the respondents, this Court will not sit as an appellate Court to interfere on finding of facts. As all the respondents have held that there was variation in the stocks, and the petitioner failed to explain those variations satisfactorily, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order cancelling the authorization of the petitioner and upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th June, 2009 vrn