THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4759 of 2010 03.03.2010 Between: G.Jaya Kumar ….Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4759 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Yennaram village. The Tahsildar, Bantwaram Mandal, after making enquiry, sent a report dated 10.11.2009 to the third respondent. The report is to the effect that the petitioner diverted 70 liters of kerosene oil to blackmarket through auto bearing No.AP 28V 5625. On 06.11.2009 the Sarpanch and other villagers got the auto and gave a complaint. It was also reported that the petitioner lifted 1350 liters of kerosene oil on 06.11.2009, but failed to distribute the same to cardholders. There was a short fall of 200 liters of kerosene. Based on the same, third respondent issued show cause notice dated 01.12.2009 framing two charges and petitioner was asked to submit explanation as to why further action should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted explanation on 02.12.2009 denying the charges. After considering the same, the third respondent passed orders on 14.12.2009 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner under clause 5(4) and (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for petitioner raised the following contentions. The show cause notice is vague and does not put the petitioner on notice with regard to penalty proposed for alleged contraventions. Secondly, the third respondent did not conduct any enquiry before passing the impugned order and lastly, the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind. This Court considered the matter and perused the material. There is no denial that the remedy of appeal to the Joint Collector against the order of the third respondent is very much available to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is an effective remedy. Therefore, at this point of time, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner is given liberty to prefer an appeal within a period of ten days from today. As and when appeal is filed, second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 03.03.2010 Pln