THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.1281 of 2006 BETWEEN: Smt. K. Indira PETITIONER And 1. The District Collector (C.S.), Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for C.S. The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by a fair price shop dealer, who have suffered cancellation of authorization, challenging the order of the 1st respondent, viz., the District Collector (C.S.), Srikakulam, in D.Dis.No.442/2005 S.2, Dated 7.10.2005, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent, viz., the Joint Collector, (C.S.), Srikakulam, in D.Dis.No.264/2005 (in SRA No.11/2003 S.2) dated 26.04.2005 and the orders of the 3rd respondent, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali Division, in R.C.No.2057/2000 A dated 22.05.2003. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for Tamalapuram Village. On 24.07.2000, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Srikakulam inspected the shop of the petitioner and noticed that there was an excess of 7 quintals of rice and shortage of 706 liters of kerosene oil and 38 kgs., of sugar. Based on the said report, the 3rd respondent served a show cause notice dated 27.08.2000 alleging as follows. Charge No.1:- “That she being a responsible F.P. Shop dealer of Thamalapuram Village failed to maintain adequate stocks in the F.P. shop and thus contravened Clause 16(1) of APSC (RDC) Order 1973.” Charge No.2:- “That she being a responsible F.P. shop dealer has kept excess stock of drought rice of 7 quintals and being diverted into black market and thus the dealer contravened the instructions of the Higher authorities. Thus she contravened Clause 16(4) of APSC (RDCS) order, 1973 and violated condition 13 of authorization.” The petitioner submitted her explanation on 3.02.2001 denying the said charges. The 3rd respondent not being convinced, cancelled the authorization by orders dated 22.05.2003. On a further challenge to the said orders by way of appeal to the 2nd respondent and a revision to the 1st respondent, the order of the primary authority canceling the authorization was confirmed. This writ petition is directed against the said orders. Heard Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri E. Satish Kumar representing Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in Charge No.1 are vague in nature and the allegations levelled in Charge No.2 are irrational in as much as mere excess stock of 7 quintals of rice would not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner diverted it to the black market. The learned counsel would also submit that in any event the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation denying the allegations and it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the said explanation and pass a reasoned order. It is stated that none of the respondents have considered the explanation of the petitioner in proper perspective and passed a reasoned order. Refuting the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader would submit that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was put on notice and after receiving the explanation, as it was not found convincing, his authorization was cancelled. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would contend that after cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization, a notification was issued to fill up the vacancy, and the 5th respondent has been appointed in the place of the petitioner. He would also contend that the Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2002 preferred under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) by the petitioner before the District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam against the orders of confiscation passed under Section 6A of the Act, ended in conviction of the petitioner. He would therefore contend that the authorization was rightly cancelled and the same does not warrant interference. At the out set, it must be mentioned that the proceedings initiated for confiscation under the provisions of Section 6A of the Act are independent in nature and any confiscation of stocks in the said proceedings by itself cannot a ground for action for cancellation of the authorization under the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order. Therefore, proceedings in appeal under Section 6C of the Act also cannot a ground for any disciplinary action against the authorization. However, a perusal of the order passed by the 3rd respondent shows that the 3rd respondent has been influenced more by orders of confiscation made under Section 6A of the Act. A further examination of the said order would show that he has not considered the explanation offered by the petitioner. Admittedly, a show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner has submitted explanation. It is therefore, incumbent upon the 3rd respondent to consider the same and pass a reasoned order. It is well settled that reasons are sine quo non for passing a valid order. In the appeal, the petitioner raised several grounds including the ground that the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are entirely different from the disciplinary proceedings and the same could not form the basis for canceling the authorization. It was pleaded therein that there was no excess or shortage of kerosene and sugar and the excess stock of rice was meant for Mid-Day Meal Scheme. A perusal of the said order also shows that without considering the said contentions, the appeal was dismissed stating that the petitioner did not adduce evidence and that the irregularities committed are serious in nature. In the revision filed before the 1st respondent, the petitioner reiterated the said contentions and the 1st respondent again reiterated a similar order and dismissed the revision by orders dated 7.10.2005. On examining the aforesaid orders it is evident that none of the respondents have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner. The respondents have not recorded reasons for reaching the conclusions. In a case of similar nature a Division Bench of this Court in Ambati Srinivasulu v. District Collector, Nellore and others[1] held that rules of natural justice are multi-faceted and multi-dimensional and reasons for the order passed is one of the facets of the principles of natural justice. Evidently, the impugned orders failed to satisfy the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment. For the foregoing analysis, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali for reconsideration. The 3rd respondent shall reconsider the matter after due notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate order by giving valid reasons in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In as much as the 5th respondent has been appointed through a process of selection and that the petitioner has not been running the shop, the 5th respondent shall be permitted to run the shop till the disposal of the matter. The grant of authorization in favour of the 5th respondent shall be subject to the result of the orders. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25th February, 2011 Js. [1] 2006 (1) ALT 273