THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27301 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the validity of order, dated 14.07.2004 passed in Rc.No.876/2004 by the third respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District, cancelling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, and also orders, dated 30.12.2005 and 05.10.2007 passed by the second and first respondents/appellate and revisional authorities – Joint Collector, Anantapur, and District Collector, Anantapur. Petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of Chamalagondi Village, Gandlapenta Mandal, Anantapur District. Based on the report of the fourth respondent – Tahsildar, Gandlapenta, Anantapur District, issued in Rc.No.65/2004, dated 03.06.2004, the third respondent initiated proceedings against her. There upon, a show cause notice, dated 14.06.2004 was issued in Rc.No.876/2004 to the petitioner by framing five charges against her alleging that she is not residing in the fair price shop jurisdiction and residing at Singanivaripalli Village; that the fair price shop is run by one Sivappa, benami dealer; that the benami dealer, Sivappa, is selling essential commodities at higher rates; that the benami dealer is distributing essential commodities with less measurements and that the benami dealer is selling rice and kerosene at higher rates, and called upon her to submit an explanation. She submitted explanation on 21.06.2004. In the explanation, she has stated that she owns a house at Chamalagondi and residing in the fair price shop jurisdiction only and the villages namely, Singanivaripalli, Chamalagondi, Harijanawada, Reddivaripalli and Bandameedapalli are within the fair price shop jurisdiction of Chamalagondi only and she denied the allegations of running the fair price shop through a benami person, by name, Sivappa, and selling the essential commodities at higher rates. The third respondent/primary authority by recording findings that the petitioner is not residing in Chamalagondi Village and residing at Singanivaripalli Village, and the fair price shop dealer can take the assistance of her family members but not others, held that charges 1 to 3 are proved and further, simply recording that her explanation is not convincing, held that charge Nos.4 and 5 are proved and thereby, ordered cancellation of her fair price shop authorisation, by his order, dated 14.07.2004. As against the same, she carried the matter in appeal. Even the appellate authority has rejected the appeal by order, dated 30.12.2005 passed in D.Dis.(K4)852/2004 and she was also unsuccessful before the revisional authority in view of dismissal of revision by order, dated 05.10.2007 passed in D.Dis.No.K4/45/2006. In this case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Singanivaripalli is the hamlet of Chamalagondi Village and in spite of proper explanation submitted by the petitioner, without recording valid findings, the third respondent passed the order of cancellation. It is further submitted that as the petitioner is a handicapped person and so also, her husband, she was taking the assistance of her brother-in-law, by name, Sivappa, as such, he could not have been treated as a benami dealer to cancel her fair price shop authorisation. It is also submitted that in the absence of any material and acceptable evidence, the third respondent simply rejected the explanation of the petitioner and based on the ex parte report of the fourth respondent, passed the order of cancellation, which is confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 4 that the fair price shop is located in Chamalagondi Village and as she was not residing in that Village, the same is contrary to the guidelines issued for running the fair price shop. It is also submitted that after her marriage, the petitioner is living with her husband at Singanivaripalli Village and she was running the shop through a benami person, as such, in view of the reasons stated in the order of cancellation, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 to 3, the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent. In this case, it is to be noticed that there is no charge framed against the petitioner that she is not residing in the Village, where the fair price shop is located. It is the specific charge against the petitioner that she is not residing in the fair price shop jurisdiction and is residing at Singanivaripalli Village. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner, she has categorically stated that the Villages, namely, Singanivaripalli, Chamalagondi, Harijanawada, Reddivaripalli and Bandameedapalli, are all within the jurisdiction of Chamalagondi fair price shop. When there is no charge that she is not residing in Chamalagondi Village, when it is the specific case of the petitioner that Singanivaripalli Village is also within the jurisdiction of Chamalagondi fair price shop, there is no reason for not accepting the same. A perusal of the findings recorded by the first respondent/revisional authority in order, dated 05.10.2007 passed in D.Dis.No.K4/45/2006 and the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent indicates that the first respondent by stating that the petitioner is not residing in Chamalagondi Village, sought to widen the scope of the charge whereas no such charge is framed against her. But, the charge framed is, she is not residing in the fair price shop jurisdiction itself. With regard to the charge that she is running the fair price shop through one Sivappa, benami person, it appears, the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and as per the guidelines, there are certain exceptions for Physically Handicapped persons. In this view of the matter, it can be said that the third respondent simply, recorded a finding that she is running the shop through a benami dealer, by name, Sivappa, without taking into account her statement that she is taking the assistance of her brother-in-law, by name, Sivappa. Even with regard to the other charges, only by recording a finding that the explanation is not convincing, the third respondent held that the said charges are proved. For the aforesaid reasons, as the first charge is not precise and there are no definite findings recorded on the other charges framed against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case for re-consideration by the third respondent by conducting enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner by framing definite charges and by giving her an opportunity of hearing. In that view of the matter, order, dated 14.07.2004, passed by the third respondent/primary authority in Rc.No.876/2004, as confirmed by the second and first respondents/appellate and revisional authorities, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the third respondent to conduct enquiry afresh and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible. However, it is open to the third respondent to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner by framing definite charges against her. On issuance of such show cause notice, it is open to the petitioner to file additional explanation. The third respondent shall complete this exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the arrangement, which exists as on today, shall be continued. The Writ Petition is allowed with the directions referred to above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni