HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25188 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer of Setty Atmakur Village, Gadwal Mandal, filed this Writ Petition, questioning the order, dated 07.11.2008, passed by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, in Case No.CS1/268/2008, whereby the order, dated 15.03.2008, passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in Case No.CS1/86/2008 was confirmed. By the said order, the Joint Collector has upheld the proceedings in File No.G/1972/2006, dated 27.12.2007, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal Division, Mahabubnagar District, canceling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner in respect of the said shop. Based on the complaint given by MPTC member and Upa Sarpanch, the Tahsildar submitted a report to the Mandal Revenue Officer, who, in turn, issued a show cause notice, dated 24.04.2007, to the petitioner, wherein the following charges were framed: - 1) That Sri Ashok Kumar, F.P. Shop dealer of Setty Atmakur Village has misused the PDS rice as there is hvariation of (0-40) kg of rice for which there is no account; 2) That there are (2) Annapurna cardholders in the Village and the dealer had distributed 0-10 kgs of rice only to one A.P. cardholder and misused 0-10 kgs rice per month. 3) That the dealer has mentioned new card bearing No.189, twice at Sl.No.218 and at Sl.No.267 of D.register. Similarly, the card No.273 has also been entered twice at Sl.Nos.142 and 278. Thus, the dealer misused (0-40) kgs of rice. 4) That (17-15) quintals of rice under AAY was allotted and lifted by the dealer whereas in the Distribution register rice was distributed to (50) AAY cardholders only leaving a balance of 0-35 kgs and there is no balance. Thus, the dealer had prepared fabricated records. 5) That the dealer has not maintained distribution registers of (i) kerosene for the month of October, 2006 and (ii) Rice and kerosene for the months of November and December, 2006. 6) That the dealer failed to maintain stock register. 7) That the dealer had not produced the distribution register of rice for the month of October, 2006 at the time of local enquiry and on repeated persuasion by the MRI only he had produced the same on 19.12.2006. 8) That the dealer has not maintained good relation with the cardholders in the village. For the said charges, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 24.11.2007, in which he has pleaded that the complaint lodged against him is a politically motivated one. In the absence of giving specific explanation to each of the charges, the primary authority by recording a finding that explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing, held the charges proved and cancelled the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings No.G/1972/2006, dated 27.12.2007. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Joint Collector who dismissed the appeal by order, dated 15.03.2008, and further, the said orders were confirmed by the revisional authority by dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner by order, dated 07.11.2008, passed in Case No.CS1/268/2008. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner by the Upa Sarpanch and MPTC member, as they were having political grudge against him and as such, the same is a politically motivated one and there is no truth in the allegations. It is further submitted that though enquiry is initiated based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, a copy of the same is not furnished to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the orders passed against the petitioner are illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the explanation dated 24.11.2007, filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.Kalyani V. District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole[1], wherein this Court has held that the failure to assign reasons by the Revenue Divisional Officer holding that allegations levelled against dealer have been proved and failure to consider explanation of dealer in correct perspective has effect of vitiating order of cancellation and further, not supplying the report of the Tahsildar, which form the basis for framing the charges, will suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. From a perusal of the explanation filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the same did not contain explanation to each of the charges which form part of the show cause notice issued to him. Mere statement in the explanation that the action is a politically motivated one, by itself is not a ground to drop the proceedings against the petitioner when specific allegations are levelled against him giving the particulars of quantities which are misused with regard to rice; the total entries in the registers; not maintaining distribution registers for particular months namely November 2006 and December 2006; and that not producing the stock registers etc, the petitioner ought to have filed a detailed explanation to the charges levelled against him. Merely because the complaint is lodged by MPTC member and Upa Sarpanch, it cannot be said that the same is only a politically motivated one when the inspection of the records by the Tahsildar disclosed various irregularities and the proceedings were initiated by framing specific charges. In the instant case, the petitioner has not submitted explanation to each of the charges framed against him when an opportunity was given to him, instead he simply stated that the action initiated against him is only a politically motivated one. In such an event, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is no specific explanation offered by the petitioner on each of the charges, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance in support of his case. As such, it is to be held that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the primary authority, as confirmed by appellate and revisional authorities, which are impugned in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th September 2011 DR [1] 2006(5) ALD 796 (DB)