IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.21601 of 2005 Between: Ch. R.S. Prakasha Rao, S/o. Narayana, (Under Cancellation) Polavaram(V) Guduru(M) Krishna District. ..... Petitioner AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam 2 The Joint Collector. Krishna at Machilipatnam 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, Krishna District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Guduru (M) at Guduru, Krishna District. .....Respondents 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 issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent issued in proc. Rc.B1/RP/04/2005 dt.25.7.2005 conﬁrming the orders of 2nd respondent vide proc. Rc.B1/SRA/01/2005 dt.09.3.2005 and 3rd respondent in proc. No. D.Dis.3/C.1018/2004 dt.17.9.2004 are illegal, arbitrary, without arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21601 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is authorised Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer of Polavaram village of Gudur Mandal in Krishna District. On a complaint/ report given by Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (MRO), Guduru, third respondent initiated necessary action under Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System Control Order 2001 (Control Order, for brevity) and cancelled authorisation by proceedings, dated 17.9.2004. The main allegation against petitioner was that he diverted eight (8) quintals of Food For Work (FFW) rice to open market. Petitioner was unsuccessful before appellate authority as well as revisional authority. Hence he approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for petitioner raised two contentions. First, he submits that that there was no material before original authority as well as appellate/revisional authority to come to the conclusion that petitioner diverted eight (8) quintals of FFW rice to open market. Secondly, as an alternative submission, he contends that Control Order and Clause 5(4) thereof has no application in respect of FFW rice, as it is not an essential commodity meant for Public Distribution System. Insofar as ﬁrst submission is concerned, the same cannot be subject matter of a writ petition, as it is a question of fact. As held by Division Bench of this Court (to which I was a Member) in T.Edukondalu v R.D.O. [1], in a matter of this nature, disputed questions of fact cannot be readjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of Constitution. Second submission is also squarely covered by an unreported judgment of this Court in Shaik Ramu v Government of Andhra Pradesh (WP.No.7853 of 2003, dated 28.12.2007), wherein it is laid down as under. On a combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the rice being a scheduled commodity as deﬁned under the Control Order 1973 as well as 2001 Control Order is one of the items meant for distribution to the consumers and the authorized dealers are bound to distribute the same either under PDS or FFWS in compliance with the instructions of the appointing authority. Hence, in the event of the authorized dealer indulging in misappropriation of such commodity, the authorization is liable for suspension or cancellation. Precisely, the same was done by the 1st respondent after recording a ﬁnding that the petitioner had indulged in diversion of rice meant for FFWS. Admittedly, the said order was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conducting an enquiry following due process of law. In view of the above, this Court holds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) October 21, 2008 YS To 1 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam 2 The Joint Collector. Krishna at Machilipatnam 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, Krishna District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Guduru (M) at Guduru, Krishna District. 5 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 6 Two C.D. Copies. [1] 1999(5) ALD 600 (D.B.)