THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31038 of 2010 Date: 10.12.2010 Between: T. Vasantha ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order dated 14.08.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby he has confirmed the orders dated 14.07.2009 and 18.01.2010 of respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively. I have heard Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer. Following an inspection of her shop by the officials of the Civil Supplies Department, respondent No.3 framed two charges, which read as under: “Charge 1) that the F.P. Shop dealer failed to deliver failed to deliver 12.50 Qtls of SGRY (Spl.Comp) rice to the Coolies in time who are engaged for construction of NTR Degree College area though she received stocks in the month of April 2006 and thereby violated conditions of authorization. Charge 2) that the fair price shop was closed during the visit of the enquiry Officer on 01.02.2007 at 11.45 A.M., she failed to appear for enquiry and violated Clause 2 of APPDS Control Order 2001.” The petitioner submitted her explanation. As regards the first charge, she has pleaded that 12.50 quintals of rice of special component, which was meant for distribution under a scheme called SJRY scheme, shall be distributed only against production of coupons supplied to the labourers, who are engaged in the works covered by the scheme and that on receipt of the stocks they were entered in the stock register, and as coupons were not produced by the labourers, she could not distribute the commodities. With regard to the second charge, it is the case of the petitioner that as her unmarried son was hospitalised and undergone a surgery on his leg, she had to attend on him in the B.I.R.R.D. Hospital at Tirupati and therefore, she could not be present at the time of inspection on 01.02.2007. By his order dated 14.07.2009, respondent No.3 has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who through his order dated 18.01.2010, confirmed the order of respondent No.3. The petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 feeling aggrieved by the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said revision petition was disposed of by respondent No.1, vide his order dated 14.08.2010. Respondent No.1, having accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner for her absence on the date of inspection dropped charge No.2. However, he confirmed the orders of the primary and appellate authorities on charge No.1 by holding that non- distribution of stocks to SJRY labourers for fourteen months is a grave irregularity and therefore, the order of cancellation passed by primary authority as confirmed in the appeal cannot be interfered with. I have carefully considered the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None of these respondents have applied their mind to the explanation offered by the petitioner on charge No.1. As noted hereinabove, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the rice was to be distributed against production of coupons by the labourers to whom rice was allotted and that she could not distribute rice due to non- production of coupons by the labourers. Respondent No.3 has merely observed in his order that for fourteen months the petitioner has not distributed rice and that having temporarily misappropriated the rice, she has got the rice brought from a different place and distributed in the presence of the Deputy Tahsildar on 13.06.2007. In my opinion, this finding travels beyond the scope of charge No.1 as there is no accusation of the petitioner temporarily misappropriating the rice in the said charge. Moreover, respondent No.3 has not rendered any finding that either no coupons needed to be produced by the labourers or that the labourers were prepared to produce the coupons but the petitioner declined to receive the same and failed to distribute the rice. Unless the petitioner’s explanation referred to above is rejected, there is no justification to find her guilty of charge No.1 for the mere fact that she did not distribute the rice for a period of fourteen months. In his order, respondent No.2 has mechanically confirmed the order of respondent No.3 even though he has extracted grounds of appeal including ground No.4, wherein the petitioner has categorically pleaded that as the labourers have not brought the coupons, the rice could not be distributed and that only on 13.06.2007, the coupons were received and the rice was distributed. Even respondent No.1 failed to apply his mind to this explanation offered by the petitioner. On a careful consideration of the above noted facts, I am of the opinion that the findings rendered by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the petitioner is guilty of charge No.1 suffer from a patent error and they cannot be sustained as the petitioner’s explanation was not considered much less disbelieved. As such, I do not find any justification in the orders of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. Accordingly, all the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 dated 14.08.2010, 18.01.2010 and 14.07.2009 respectively are quashed. The authorization of the petitioner stands restored. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39490 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th December, 2010 GHN