IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21799 of 2002 Between: Karra Surya Pratap S/o. Thataiah (Under Cancellation Proceedings), Tummalapalem (V), H/o. Nelakurru (V), Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 3 The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or Order or Direction preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.B1/RP/1/99 dt. 31.3.2002 confirming the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondent and 23.7.99 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorisation of the petitioner's F.P.Shop and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 21799 OF 2002 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. No counter affidavit is filed. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Tummalapalem Village, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District, issued a show cause notice dated 15.4.1997 alleging that (1) the petitioner has not made available the relevant records for verification at the time of inspection and thereby, violated Condition No. 6 of the authorization, (2) the petitioner sold the essential commodities i.e., Sugar, Rice and Kerosene for higher price of Rs. 00.50ps, 00.50ps and 00.10 ps respectively, (3) the petitioner has issued the kerosene to the cardholders only three litres as against five litres, thereby violating condition No. 11. The petitioner filed an explanation stating that at the time of inspection as he was suffering from ill-health, his brother was requested to sell the essential commodities and while he was distributing the essential commodities on 27.3.1997 his brother could not produce the relevant records though all the records are available in the shop itself and therefore, there was no illegality committed by him and therefore, it cannot be said that he had violated Condition No. 6 of the authorization. With regard to the second charge, it is stated that the petitioner has been working as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the last five years and he never committed any irregularity and he never distributed the essential commodities with excess price than what had been fixed by the Government. It is further stated that the essential commodities were distributed to the card holders by obtaining their signatures in the register. With regard to the third charge, it is specifically stated that there is no evidence whatsoever. It is stated that he has distributed exact quantity of Kerosene to the card holders while disbelieving the said explanation, it was held that the charges have been proved. It is further stated that previously the petitioner was imposed a fine of Rs. 300/- and as the charges said to have been proved the authorization of the Fair Price Shop Dealership has been cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector without dealing with any of the contentions mentioned above, held that the charges have been proved and false entries have been made in the cards. The revisional authority has not dealt with any of the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. Except stating that there is no reason to interfere with the order nothing has been recorded. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer so also the appellate authority as to which of the card holders, less quantity of Kerosene was supplied. With regard to the production of records, the respondents could have summoned the records as the petitioner was specifically stated that due to his ill-health, his brother was distributing the essential commodities. In view of the aforesaid facts, as the explanation has not been dealt with properly and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to deal with each and every contention raised with regard to the allegations as contained in the explanation and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, fresh orders may be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 08.04.2008 KA .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 3 The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 4. 2CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad. 5. 2CD copies