HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.8004 of 2008 Date: September 27, 2011 Between: C.Bhagyavathi, W/o.Subramanyam Naidu … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor District and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 09.02.2008 passed in proceedings D.Dis.C1/1150/07, by the 1st respondent-District Collector, confirming the order dated 10.08.2007, passed in proceedings D.Dis.C1/851/07, by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, whereby he confirmed the order dated 21.05.2007 passed in proceedings D.Dis.C1/1150/07, by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner is a dealer for fair-price shop No.174 of Mittapalle village, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District. Based on the report of the 4th respondent-MRO, alleging that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities, enquiry was initiated against her by the 3rd respondent-RDO and show- cause notice was issued framing the following charges: 1. The dealer has not produced the authorization to the inspecting authority at the time of inspection of the FP shop and thereby violated condition 9 of the authorization. 2. The dealer failed to display quantum board (quantity of issue of scheduled commodities on each card) and price board, thereby contravened clause 20 (22) (iv) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 3. The dealer has not maintained the stock registers for the month of January 2006. Hence, the dealer has failed to maintain/records, thereby violated condition 4(1) of the authorization. 4. The dealer is residing at Palamaner and she has unauthorized transferred the fair shop to one Sri P.Naga Sankara, thereby violated condition 10 of the authorization. In response to the show-cause notice, explanation was filed by the petitioner denying all the charges. The primary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent-RDO, without recording any finding on the first three charges has passed the order dated 21.05.2007, canceling the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not residing in the village, based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the explanation filed by the petitioner, with regard to the fourth charge, the petitioner has clearly stated that her aged parents are residing in Palamaner and to see her bedridden mother she used to visit Palamaner frequently and one Sri Naga Sanakara was assisting her in writing bills and distribution of essential commodities. In spite of the same, such explanation is not considered and only basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer; by recording a finding on the fourth charge, the authorization of the petitioner is cancelled. Though the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, who is the appellate authority, the appellate authority, on the ground that all the charges are proved against the petitioner, rejected the appeal. The revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Joint Collector was also rejected by the revisional authority, i.e. the 1st respondent-District Collector, by order dated 09.02.2008, by recording a finding that the grounds of appeal do not rebut the charges framed and are general in nature. From the material on record, it is clear that it is a clear case of non-application of mind by the primary authority in canceling the authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed explanation to each of the charges; in spite of the same, no findings are recorded on the first three charges and a finding is recorded only on the fourth charge, based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. When proceedings for cancellation of the authorization of a dealer are initiated and show-cause notice is issued, the authorities are expected to consider the explanation before recording findings on the charges framed. But, in this case, it is to be noted that though the petitioner has submitted her explanation to each of the charges, discarding the explanation offered by her with regard to the first three charges, the 3rd respondent proceeded to cancel the authorization of the petitioner only basing on the fourth charge, based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The said report of the Mandal Revenue Officer alone should not have been the basis to record adverse finding against the petitioner. In absence of recording any finding on the other three charges and recording a finding only on the fourth charge, without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner on the said charge, the primary authority could not have passed order canceling the authorization of the petitioner. It is also to be noticed that the 2nd respondent- appellate authority has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and contrary to the material on record recorded finding that all the charges are proved. Even the revisional authority has not considered the explanation filed by the petitioner with reference to the charges framed against her and merely confirmed the order of the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, it is a fit case to set aside the order canceling the authorization of the petitioner, as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. Accordingly, the order dated 09.02.2008 passed in proceedings D.Dis.C1/1150/07, by the 1st respondent-District Collector, the order dated 10.08.2007, passed in proceedings D.Dis.C1/851/07, by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, whereby he confirmed the order dated 21.05.2007 passed in proceedings D.Dis.C1/1150/07, by the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, are hereby set-aside. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 27, 2011 MRR