IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20656 of 2006 Between: J. Sarada D/o. J. Ramappala Reddy Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (C.S.) Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 2 The Joint Collector (C.S.) Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the RespondentS: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings, dated 31.12.2004, 28.05.2005 and 20.12.2005 of respondent Nos.3, 2 and 1 respectively and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Lopenta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in default. Even otherwise, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed because after giving an opportunity of hearing and considering the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.3 by his order, dated 31.12.2004 cancelled the authorization of fair price shop dealership of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 on the basis of the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Laveru, after public enquiry, found all the three charges framed against the petitioner proved. One of the charges pertains to selling of essential commodities at higher prices than the prices at which she is permitted to sell. Respondent Nos.2 and 1 who are the appellate and revisional authorities confirmed the order of respondent No.3. A perusal of the above mentioned orders of respondent Nos.1 to 3 does not indicate any error of law warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 29.09.2006 is vacated, WPMP.No.26184 of 2006 and WVMP.No.1103 of 2007 are dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th MARCH, 2008 kvni