THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.6701 of 2007 20th January, 2011 Between :- L.P.Rami Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its District Collector, Kadapa District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.6701 of 2007 ORDER:- The petitioner who has suffered the cancellation of autorization to run a fair price shop has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 17-2-2007 in Ref.No.I(3)/3345/2005 of the 1st respondent viz., the District Collector, Kadapa, confirming the orders passed on appeal of the 2nd respondent – Joint Collector, Kadapa, dated 19-7-2005 in Ref.No.I(3)/3208/2004 and the order of the primary authority – the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa – 3rd respondent herein dated 15- 9-2004 in proceedings No.C/360/2004. 2. On the complaint of some cardholders that the petitioner was selling the commodities at higher rates, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet Mandal – the 4th respondent herein inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner and submitted a report dated 23-6-2004 to the 3rd respondent herein. Based on the said report, a show-cause notice dated 4-8-2004 was served on the petitioner with the following charges:- CHARGE 1:- That the F.P.Shop dealer is selling essential commodities at higher prices as follows violation of condition 7 of Authorisation issued under clause 5 of APSC (RDCS) Order, 2001. Govt.Price Selling rate 1. Rice (Per Kg) Rs.5.25 Rs.6.00 2. Sugar (per Kg) Rs.13.50 Rs.15.00 3. Kerosene (per litre) Rs.9.50 Rs.11.00 CHARGE 2 :- That the dealer has failed to exhibit stock cum price list board in violation of condition 7 of licence granted under APSCD (I&D) Order, 2001. The petitioner submitted explanation. While denying the charges, the petitioner sought to allege that the shop was in fact closed on 20-6- 2004 and therefore the Mandal Revenue Officer could not have inspected and noticed the alleged irregularities as to the exhibition of Stock-cum-Price List Board and the Records relating to the Fair Price Shop. After receipt of the explanation, the 3rd respondent conducted proceedings, finding the charges as proved, cancelled the authorization by order dated 15-9-2004. The appeal and the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order also did not yield positive results in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations made are unfounded and motivated at the instance of the political opponents of the petitioner to whom the 3rd respondent yielded. He would further contend that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not inspect the shop on 20-6-2004, on which date the petitioner had closed the shop and hence there was no possibility of verifying the allegations made in Charge 2. He would contend that the authorities wrongly placed the burden of proof on the petitioner relating to charge No.1. On these grounds, the learned Counsel would contend that the impugned orders are vitiated and liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner was found indulging in the sale of commodities for higher rates and after the inspection of the shop, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report to the 3rd respondent herein, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself against the charges and the 3rd respondent rightly found that the charges proved and having regard to the gravity of charge No.1, rightly cancelled the authorization. He would further contend that the orders of the respondents No.1 and 2 confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent do not suffer any infirmity and therefore the said orders do not warrant interference. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and the impugned orders. 7. Charge No.1 relates to the allegation that the petitioner was selling the commodities at higher rates which is a violation under clause 5 of the Control Order. The allegations was substantiated on the basis of the statements of the cardholders. Therefore the 3rd respondent rightly relied upon the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the statements of the cardholders and rightly held that the charge was proved. The contention of the learned Counsel that the said allegation was false and made at the instance of the political opponents of the petitioner who were trying to grab his dealership cannot further be countenanced. The petitioner except making the said statement could not place any acceptable material to support the said statement. 8. While contending that charge No.2 cannot be taken into consideration on the ground that the Fair Price Shop was closed on 20-6-2004, the counsel would contend that the entire enquiry was stage managed. As mentioned above, charge No.2 relates to the failure to exhibit Stock-cum-Price List Board. Irrespective of the fact that the shop was closed on the date of inspection, the display of the board and upkeep of registers cannot be dispensed with. The 1st respondent therefore rightly found that these charges were also proved and violative of the provisions of the Control Order. 9. The 2nd respondent on appeal considered the matter as presented before him and found that the Mandal Revenue Officer, in fact, enquired the cardholders and recorded their statements which proved that the petitioner was selling the commodities at higher rates. Similarly, the 1st respondent considered the revision petition filed by the petitioner and concurred with the findings of the Primary and Appellate authorities. 10. From my conspectus consideration of the entire matter as above, it is evident that the authorities have considered the matter in right perspective and recorded the findings based on material by rightly over-ruling the stand taken by the petitioner. There being no other legal infirmity pointed out, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. The learned Counsel for petitioner however would pursue that having regard to the triviality of the nature of charges 1 and 2, the cancellation of authorization is disproportionate and seeks indulgence of this Court to reduce the punishment. This Court cannot go into the proportionality of the punishment awarded by the statutory authorities. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ Noushad Ali, J 20th day of January, 2011 smr