HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1798 of 2008 Date: October 11, 2011 Between: M.Venkatesu, S/o.Munivenkatappa … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer which reads as under: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in D.Dis.(C1)/2010/06 dated 12.12.2007 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent passed in D.Dis.No.E1/515/05 dated 22.02.2006 and the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Roc.No.A3/5098 dated 14.06.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same.” Petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Matam village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District. On the report of the Tahsildar, Santhipuram Mandal, wherein he has reported that the petitioner has committed irregularities and caused inconvenience to the cardholders, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of his authorisation. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 20.01.2005 framing as many as six charges and he was asked to show cause as to why his authoisation should not be cancelled. To the said show-cause notice, petitioner has submitted explanation denying the charges. Thereon, the primary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent-RDO, considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, has recorded a finding that the charges framed against the petitioner, which are severe in nature, are proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it is not desirable to continue him, cancelled his authorisation by order dated 14.06.2005. Though the petitioner filed an appeal and revision against the said order, he was unsuccessful. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents and perused the orders impugned. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of valid explanation offered by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice, the same has not been considered in a proper perspective before passing the impugned order and the appellate and revisional authorities, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, declined to interfere with the order passed by the 3rd respondent-RDO. From a perusal of the order dated 14.06.2005, passed by the 3rd respondent-RDO, who is the primary authority, it is clear that each of the charges framed against the petitioner and the explanation offered by the petitioner thereto have been considered in detail and thereupon findings are recorded to the effect that the petitioner has misappropriated huge quantities of rice, i.e. 182.08 quintals. The appellate and revisional authorities have considered the matter in detail and recorded valid findings, affirming the order passed by the primary authority. As much as the charges framed against the petitioner are serious in nature, which are proved beyond reasonable doubt by recording valid findings by the primary authority, as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, I see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 11, 2011 MRR