HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.27321 of 2007 Date: September 29, 2011 Between: M.Vanaja, W/o.M.Maheshwer … Petitioner And The District Collector, R.R. Distirct at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 17.09.2007 passed in proceedings No.A7/546/2007, by the 1st respondent-District Collector, the order dated 17.07.2007 passed in case No.A7/444 of 2007, by the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector and the order dated 24.04.2007 passed in proceedings No.C/713/2007, by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. Petitioner is a dealer for the fair price shop No.017-A of Yadgarpally village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara, dated 08.02.2007, to the effect that the petitioner is diverting 21 bags of rice, each weighing 50 kgs., meant for public distribution to the black market, i.e. to the shop of one Mr.Champalal Marwadi in Yadgarpally village, proceedings were initiated to cancel her authorization. A show-cause notice was issued to her on 14.02.2007 framing the following charges: “Charge-I: The F.P.Shop dealer of Shop No.017-A of Yadgarpally vg. is involved in diversion of 21 bags of PD rice each weighing 50 kgs. FCI marked into black market for pecuniary gains. Charge-II: During the inspection the MRI has noticed certain variations in respect of essential commodities, i.e. PD Rice, K.Oil etc. Charge-III: The F.P.Shop dealer of Shop No.017-A of Yadgarpally vg. has entered the kerosene in the stock register but balance shown as nil whereas when the MRI inspected the F.P.S. and noticed that 10 Ltrs. of K.Oil found in the shop. Charge-IV: The F.P.Shop dealer of Shop No.017-A of Yadgarpally vg. has not maintained records properly such as daily sale register and stock register.” Though the petitioner received the show-cause notice she did not file any explanation. As she failed to file her explanation to the show-cause notice, the primary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent-RDO passed order dated 24.04.2007 cancelling her authorization. Though she carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority, i.e. the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector, the same was dismissed by order dated 17.07.2007 and also confirmed in revision by the revisional authority, i.e. the 1st respondent-District Collector by order dated 17.09.2007. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the petitioner filing explanation to the show- cause notice earlier, the primary authority, without considering the same, passed order canceling the authorization of the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no basis for the allegation against the petitioner that she has diverted the stock of 21 bags of rice each weighing 50 kgs. With reference to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noticed that, at first instance, show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why her authorization should not be suspended. But, subsequently, by framing three specific charges, she was called upon to show cause why her authorization should not be cancelled by notice dated 28.03.2007. The explanation stated to have been filed by the petitioner is prior to 28.03.2007 and the same was filed in response to the show- cause notice issued in the suspension proceedings. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner has filed explanation to the show-cause notice dated 28.03.2007. It is also to be noticed that the allegation made against the petitioner is that she diverted 21 bags of rice each weighing 50 kgs., into black market, i.e. the shop of Mr.Champalal Marwadi. Further, it appears, the said premises was inspected and the statement of the owner of the said shop has been recorded, in which he has stated that the petitioner has borrowed Rs.12,000/- from him and in lieu of repayment, she has supplied 21 bags or rice each weighing 50 kgs. As the said stock of rice belongs to civil supplies department, the same was seized from the said shop. In view of the charges levelled against the petitioner, which are serious in nature and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has not filed any explanation to the show-cause notice issued to her, the 3rd respondent-RDO has cancelled her authorization, which has rightly been affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities by recording valid reasons. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 29, 2011 MRR