THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 27931 of 2008 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner has questioned the order of the Joint Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, dated 30.12.2007, issued in Rc.B1/236/2007, by which the licence granted to him under the provisions of the A.P.Petroleum Product (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, was cancelled on certain allegations. He also questioned the order of the appellate authority, dated 04.11.2008, confirming the order, dated 30.12.2007, passed by the primary authority. 2. Petitioner was granted hawkers licence under the provisions of the Control Order, referred to above. On the allegation that the petitioner was not distributing the Kerosene to the card holders as per their eligibility, on 04.05.2006 at 14.00 hours, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam village inspected the premises of the petitioner and seized 400 litres of Kerosene oil, which was found in excess, from the petitioner. The seizure was reported to the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District, alleging that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities, which read as under: 1. According to instructions of the higher authorities the respondent is supposed to distribute the Kerosene oil to the white cardholders at the rate of 4 lts. But instead of it he has supplied only 2 lts of kerosene as stated by the card holders. 2. Being a responsible retail kerosene hawker the respondent is supposed to submit the closing balance as per sales transactions and deliveries made to the card holders, whereas it is noticed that he has submitted the closing balance without delivering the kerosene oil to the card holders and also cheated the Government by giving false information. 3. Being a responsible retail kerosene hawker is supposed to maintain true and correct amounts, but where as it is noticed that he has noted in the sales registers that he delivered 729 lts to the card holders with 4 lts per each card holder but as stated by the card holders he delivered 2 lts only. 3. The primary authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, while observing that he was in possession of 400 lts of PDS kerosene in excess and there is no valid explanation offered in that regard, recorded a finding that he has violated Clauses 12 (1) (ii) of the Control Order, and accordingly, ordered for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner, who in turn, carried the matter by way of appeal before the 1st respondent. In the appeal, the 1st respondent vide his order, dated 04.11.2008, by recording a finding that there is no valid explanation offered by the petitioner for the excess kerosene, confirmed the order of the primary authority. 4. In this Writ Petition, it is contended by Sri Kowturu Vinayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the allegations made against the petitioner are without any basis. It is further submitted that all the panch witnesses have filed affidavits before the authority stating that they were receiving 4 lts of kerosene each and the allegation against the petitioner is false. In spite of the same, the primary authority has ordered cancellation. It is further submitted that there was no discrepancy in the stock register. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for the respondents, that on the date of inspection though the book balance shows 8 lts, the ground stock was 400 lts of kerosene, for which there is no explanation from the petitioner. When the enquiry was conducted, five card holders have stated in the enquiry proceedings that they were being supplied only 2 lts instead of 4 lts as per their eligibility. 6. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the order of cancellation passed by the Joint Collector as well as the order of the appellate authority. 7. In this case, it is to be noted that the inspection was conducted on 04.05.2006. On the date of inspection, petitioner has recorded that he has received a quantity of 800 lts of kerosene for the month of April, 2006 and that he distributed the entire stock except a quantity of 8 lts but at the time of seizure 400 lts of kerosene was found. It is not known when the entire quantity is already distributed as per the register, how could such a huge quantity was available in the preemies of the petitioner on the date of inspection, which was seized by the respondents. The very fact that 400 lts of kerosene was available though the book balance was shown as 8 lts itself is clear to show that the petitioner was not maintaining correct entries in the books of accounts, which is required to be maintained as per the provisions under the Control Order. It is true that the primary authority as well as the appellate authority referred to the affidavits of panch witnesses filed in the enquiry proceedings. In the affidavits the panch witnesses have stated that the petitioner has supplied full quantity of their eligibility i.e. 4 lts each but at the same time they have not disputed their signatures on the panchanama conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the panchanama, the very same witnesses stated that they were supplied only 2 lts each but not 4 lts. The very fact that they have not disputed their signatures on the panchanama indicates that they were tutored to depose falsely in favour of the petitioner only to safeguard the licence of the petitioner. In view of the reasons recorded by the primary authority and the appellate authority, this Court is convinced that valid reasons have been assigned to cancel the licence of the petitioner by the primary authority and the appellate authority. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, which warrants interference in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY ,J 22nd November, 2011. Tsy