IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2076 of 2008 Between: Jadav Chander & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Medak District at Sangareddy & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2076 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 11.07.2007 passed by respondent No.3 and to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer of Vittunaik Thanda, H/o. Mogudampall Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District. Respondent No.4 is a fair price shop dealer of Vittunaik Thanda. Based on the seizure of 100 litres of kerosene at a place called Mogudampally crossroad, his fair price shop authorization was suspended, pending enquiry. Later, a show cause notice was issued to him calling for his explanation for cancelling his authorization. The following two charges were framed against him. “1. That the fair price shop dealer has not maintained Distribution and Stock Register. 2. That the fair price shop dealer while diverting kerosene into black market the villagers seized (100) liters of kerosene oil and another 100 liters of kerosene pored into diesel tanker of lorry bearing No.K.A. 32-A 2112. Hence, he has violated the conditions 17 (c) of APPDS Control Order 2001.” Respondent No.3 in his order, having considered the explanation of respondent No.4, gave the following finding in respect of the abovementioned two charges. “According to the Inspection Report of MRI Zaheerabad he has maintained stock register and there is no variations were recorded. Hence, the charge is not proved. Revenue Inspector seized the kerosene oil at Mogudampally X road, but according to the inspection report of MRI there is no variation in the stocks are found in his report. Hence, the charge is not proved.” Having thus not found any variations and direct evidence to link respondent No.4 with the seizure of 100 litres of kerosene at a different place from the place of his business and also taken note of the fact that Tahsildar, Zaheerabad reported that respondent No.4 has been working as fair price shop dealer for the last 22 years without any complaints, surprisingly, respondent No.3 purported to have taken a lenient view as if respondent No.4 is guilty of the charges and reinstated him by imposing penalty of Rs.500/-. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners filed this writ petition. Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.3 imposed a lesser punishment on respondent No.4 and that he deserves to be removed as fair price shop dealer. I find myself in disagreement with this plea of the petitioners. As noted above, respondent No.3 has not found respondent No.4 guilty of either of the two charges framed against him. I am indeed at a loss as to how he imposed the penalty of Rs.500/- and stated that he is taking a lenient view of the matter. Since the validity of the said order has not been questioned by respondent No.4, I do not want to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.3, whereby he imposed the fine of Rs.500/-, which, in my opinion, is wholly unsustainable in the face of his categorical finding that both the charges are not proved. At any rate, the grievance of the petitioners that respondent No.3 has not imposed more severe punishment on respondent No.4 is wholly misplaced. The petitioners have not questioned the order of respondent No.3 in holding that both the charges against respondent No.4 are not proved by filing any appeal before the hierarchical authorities. In these circumstances, the writ petition is wholly without any basis and hence the same is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2648 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.03.2008 ES