IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 18629 of 2003 Between: G. Rosi Reddy, S/o. G. Sanjeeva Reddy, R/o. Reddypalli Village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur. 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. .....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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in D.Dis.No.K4/A.T.P/3798/99, dated 26.7.2003 confirming the order of the 2nd and 3rd respondent passed in D.Dis.K4/7597/97, dated 11.5.1999 and D.Dis.D1/CS/425/97, dated 31.7.1995 as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Reddypalli Village,Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.18629 OF 2003 O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Reddipalli village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. While so, a show cause notice dated 26-2-2007 has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, framing the following five charges calling up on the petitioner to submit his explanation within seven days as to why his authorization shall not be cancelled: CHARGE No.1:- That the dealer has not distributed the Sugar and Kerosene Oil to the following cards for January, 1997 (1)295338 (2) 246078, (3) 255301, (4) 246174, (5) 113223 and mis-used the stocks meant for the above cards for his personal gains thereby violated Clause (16(i) of APSC (RDCS) Order 1973. CHARGE NO.2:- That the dealer has kept the 600 litres of K.Oil instead of 700 litres without distributing to the card holders, thereby violated Clause 12 of APSCD (L&D) Order 1982. CHARGE No.3:- That the dealer was found absent in the P.P.shop on 13- 2-1997 at the time of verification of the F.P.Shop thereby contravened 16(2) of A.P.S.C (RDCS) Order, 1973. CHARGE No.4:- that the dealer has not kept the licences and records pertaining to the F.P.Shop thereby violated Clause 16 (4) of APSC (RDCS) Order, 1973. CHARGE No.5:- that the dealer has failed to exhibit the price list-cum- stock board in the F.P.Shop, thereby violated condition 8 of authorization and Clause 3 of A.P.Exhibition of Price Lists of Goods Order 1973. For the aforesaid five charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation and after considering the explanation, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order dated 31-07-1997 holding that all the charges have been proved and accordingly cancelled the authorization. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, which was dismissed by an order dated 11-5-1999, against which the revision filed before the District Collector, Anantapur was also dismissed on 26-7-2003. Against the said order, this writ petition has been filed. Charge No.1 is relating to non distribution of sugar and kerosene oil to five card holders and thereby, the dealer mis- used the stocks for personal gains. The petitioner has not chosen to examine any of the cardholders even though their particulars have been furnished. Therefore, it cannot be said that charge No.1 is without any basis. With regard to charge No.2, in the explanation, it is stated that the dealer went to the Mandal Revenue Officer along with the stock register for verification, but at the time of enquiry, the son of the dealer stated that the dealer went to Bangalore on personal work. Therefore, the explanation with regard to charge No.2 is not convincing, however, even according to the dealer, kerosene was distributed to the cardholders, but he has not furnished any particulars to whom he has distributed. Even according to the explanation, there is a variation of 20 liters of kerosene and therefore, the appellate as well as the revisional authorities confirmed the charge No.2. So also the charge Nos.3 to 5, there was no explanation and therefore, all the three authorities have held that those charges also have been proved. This Court while admitting the writ petition only ordered notice and there was no stay and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to continue as a dealer. However, in view of the concurrent findings on all the charges with regard to the variation and violation of terms and conditions of the authorization, it cannot be said that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved or justified. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merits in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 10.06.2008 Shr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur. 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. 4. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies