IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, August 25, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy W.P.No. 4213 of 2008 Between: M. Aruna Devi ..Petitioner and The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District and another …Respondents The Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy W.P.No. 4213 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioner is the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Pedd Antharam village, Kulkacherla Mandal Ranga Reddy District. Granting of authorization for the Fair Price shop dealers is governed by the provisions under the A.P. Public Distribution Control Order, 2008 and previously A.P. Public Distribution Control Order, 2001, framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was in force. 2. The first respondent herein – The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division issued show cause notice dated:03.07.2007 in No.E/2227/2007 calling for the explanation of the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against her under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, alleging that the she is not distributing the essential commodities and that one Mangali Chinnaiah is distributing the essential commodities. 3. For the said show-cause notice a detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner, a copy of which is also placed on record. In the said explanation, the petitioner submitted that as the stock point is about 28 kilometers away from her shop; the stocks are supplied in a truck and that she gave birth to a baby about four months earlier to issuance of the show-cause notice, as per the advice of the Doctor to take rest after delivery, she is taking assistance of Sri Mangali Chinnaiah, her father-in-law for distribution of the essential commodities. 4. The first respondent observing that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing, it amounts to negligence in distributing the essential commodities cancelled her authorization vide order dated:15.02.2008 in Proceedings No.E/2227/2007, impugned herein. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. I have perused the show-cause notice, the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also the impugned order canceling the authorization of the petitioner. From the perusal of the show- cause notice, the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also the impugned order, it is clear that it is a case where the first respondent had not considered the explanation offered by the petitioner in proper perspective and passed the impugned order in a routine and mechanical manner without application of mind. When the petitioner is taking the assistance of her own father-in-law on the grounds of the stock point is 28 kilo meters away from her shop and that she gave birth to a bay about four months earlier to the show cause notice and that she was advised rest by the Doctor, it cannot be said that there is negligence on her part in distributing essential commodities. Except the vague allegation of negligence, no other valid reasons are assigned in the order impugned for cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner. As per the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution Control Order, 2008, the authority has to record valid reasons for cancellation of the authorization of a dealer. As this court is of the view that no valid reasons are recorded in the impugned order in proceedings No.E/2227/2007 dated:15.02.2008 issued by the first respondent, the same is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the order in proceedings No.E/2227/2007 dated:15.02.2008 issued by the first, Special Deputy Collector-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District is hereby quashed. No costs. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 25, 2011. *BVS