THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22621 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner was appointed as a dealer for fair price shop No.21-A of Vizianagaram Town and District, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the Control Order’). Pursuant to the inspection made by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, in the petitioner’s fair price shop, on 22.11.2004, the fourth respondent - Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, submitted a report to the third respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram. Based on the said report, the third respondent issued show cause notice, dated 02.12.2004, to the petitioner alleging that she is not running the shop on her own and she allowed a benami person, by name, Venkata Rao, to run the fair price shop, as such, the same is in violation of the provisions of the Control Order. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed explanation on 14.12.2004. In the said explanation, it is stated that she was running the fair price shop from the last 15 years, she denied the allegation of allowing a benami person, by name, Venkata Rao, to run the fair price shop, as she was not keeping good health, she was taking sometimes the assistance of Sri Rambariki Appala Raju and no inconvenience was caused to the cardholders at any point of time and thereby, she sought to drop the proceedings. The primary authority/third respondent in his order bearing Rc.No.2689/04 H, dated 02.05.2005, though referred to the explanation filed by the petitioner, has recorded a finding to the effect that from the explanation filed by the petitioner, it is evident that benami person has been attending to the fair price shop business, and thereby ordered cancellation of authorisation granted to the petitioner, who in turn, carried the matter in appeal before the second respondent - Joint Collector, Vizianagaram. Curiously, the appellate authority/second respondent in his order bearing D.Dis.No.92/06, dated 05.02.2006, in F.P.S.A.P.No.7/2005, recorded a finding that as the petitioner admitted that Sri Rambariki Appala Raju is running the fair price shop, the same amounts to running the shop by a benami person. Though there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that one Venkata Rao was running the fair price shop, the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the primary authority totally on a different ground. The matter was further carried in revision before the first respondent - District Collector, Vizianagaram. The revisional authority/first respondent by his order, dated 20.08.2008 in R.P.No.3/2006/G8, though accepted the case of the petitioner that she was admitted in MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla, from 19.11.2004 to 25.11.2004, which includes the date 22.11.2004, on which, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vizianagaram inspected her fair price shop, has taken into consideration the statement of Apppala Raju stated to have been recorded on the date of inspection and thereby, confirmed the order of the second respondent. In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that in the absence of any material to show that she is running the fair price shop with a benami person, the impugned orders are passed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are passed by misconstruing the explanation offered by the petitioner and contrary to the scope of the explanation. Though the Writ Petition is of 2008, no counter-affidavit is filed but it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that even according to the petitioner, she is not running the shop and one Appala Raju was running the shop and it amounts to benami, which is in violation of the Control Order, as such, authorisation granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the primary authority and the same was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of show cause notice, dated 02.12.2004, clearly indicates that there is only one allegation levelled against the petitioner that she is running the shop through one Venkata Rao, as such, it amounts to running the shop by a benami person. In the explanation filed by the petitioner, it is categorically stated that she is taking the assistance of her uncle’s son, by name, Rambariki Appala Raju as she is not keeping good health. It is nowhere admitted that she was allowing Sri Venkata Rao to run the fair price shop, as alleged in the show cause notice. In spite of specific denial of the allegation mentioned in show cause notice, dated 02.12.2004, the primary authority in his order, dated 02.05.2005, by referring to the explanation of the petitioner, recorded a finding that it is proved that benami person is attending to the fair price shop. It appears, it is the case of total non-application of mind by the primary authority with reference to the explanation offered by the petitioner, while passing the impugned order. When the petitioner is categorically denying that she is running the shop with a benami person and further stated that as she was not keeping good health, she was taking the assistance from Rambariki Appala Raju, the same cannot be taken as a basis in proof of the allegation against the petitioner that she was running the shop through Venkata Rao, a benami person. Though there is no allegation of running the shop through R.Appala Raju, a benami person, in the place of the petitioner, the appellate authority has confirmed the order of cancellation totally on a different ground. Even in the revision petition, the first respondent recorded a finding that on 22.11.2004, when the fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected, she was admitted in the hospital and proof of admission was also filed but based on the statement of Rambariki Appala Raju, recorded on the aforesaid date, has confirmed the order of the appellate authority. The statement stated to have been given by Rambariki Appala Raju is not a part of the record before the primary authority or the appellate authority. In the absence of making any allegation in the show cause notice with reference to the statement stated to have been given by Appala Raju, the third respondent grossly erred in passing the order of cancellation as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. In that view of the matter, as much as there is no basis or material before the respondents to record a finding that the petitioner was running the shop by a benami person, as the primary authority has misconstrued the explanation filed by the petitioner and even the appellate and revisional authorities have not considered the appeal and the revision respectively in proper perspective, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to quash the order of cancellation as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. For the aforesaid reasons, order, dated 02.05.2005 passed by the third respondent in Rc.No.2689/04 H, cancelling the fair price shop authorisation granted to the petitioner, as confirmed by the appellate authority in order, dated 05.02.2006 in F.P.S.A.P.No.7/2005 and further, by the revisional authority in order, dated 20.08.2008 in R.P.No.3/2006/G8, is hereby quashed with the direction to the respondents to restore the authorisation of the petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed with the directions indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni