IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7699 of 2008 Between: Burle China Venkateswarlu, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Aged about 51 years, F.P. Shop Dealer, Rajugaripalem village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District … Petitioner And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Ongole, Prakaam District, and 14 others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop Dealer, has filed this writ petition questioning proceedings Rc.C/14/2007, dated 16-06-2007, issued by the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, as confirmed by the second respondent-Joint Collector, Prakasam District, in appeal, by proceedings dated 09-01-2008 and the first respondent-District Collector, (Civil Supplies), Ongole, Prakasam District, in revision, by proceedings dated 14-03-2008. Facts of the case, in brief, are: On 31-12-2006, on receipt of telephonic message from Rajugaripalem village to the effect that the petitioner was transporting 33 bags (each bag – 50 Kgs.) of rice meant for Public Distribution System in the tractor-trailor bearing Nos.AP-27-9385 and AP.27-T-1239, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Martur rushed to the said village and conducted enquiry. Thereafter, he seized the tractor- trailor along with 33 bags of P.D.S. rice under cover of Panchanama and reported the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Martur. On reporting of the matter to the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, he has initiated proceedings for cancellation of authorization of the petitioner. At first instance, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16-01-2007, to which the petitioner filed his explanation on 15-02-2007. The third respondent-R.D.O., unconvinced with the said explanation of the petitioner, issued proceedings Rc.C/14/2007, dated 16-06-2007, canceling the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent- Joint Collector, who, by proceedings dated 09-01-2008, dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the same, the petitioner, further, preferred a revision before the first respondent-District Collector, who, by proceedings dated 14-03-2008, vide proceedings Rc.CS2/417/2008, rejected the said revision. It is contended by Sri Rajanikanth Jwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, that immediately after seizure of the tractor-trailor along with the rice, inspection was also made in the business premises of the petitioner and the Inspecting Officer has verified the book and account balances and did not find any discrepancy in the stock; hence, there is no basis for the allegation against the petitioner that he was transporting 33 bags of rice, which is alleged to be P.D.S. rice, illegally, on 31-12-2006. It is further contended that when 44 Kgs. of rice was also seized from the business premises of the petitioner and when the same was confiscated by the District Collector in exercise of powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the petitioner filed an appeal, before the appellate authority, vide Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2009, and the same was allowed and the 44 Kgs. of rice that was seized was ordered to be returned or the value thereof. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 15, who have been impleaded, that in the enquiry proceedings, the statement of the driver of the tractor- trailor, which was seized, was recorded wherein he stated that he was transporting the stock seized, from the business premises of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of the evidence recorded in the enquiry proceedings and the statement of the driver of the tractor- trailor as well as the villagers, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner was transporting P.D.S. rice, illegally. It is also submitted that merely because no discrepancies were noticed during the course of inspection of the business premises of the petitioner, that by itself is no ground to disbelieve the allegations made against the petitioner, which are validly found and proved. I have gone through the proceedings of the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer dated 16-06-2007 and also the proceedings of the appellate and revisional authorities. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing the following three charges. “Charge No.1: that the delinquent dealer has diverted 33 Qtls. Of P.D.S. rice to black market in Tractor A.P.27 T 1239. Charge No.2: that the Tractor Owner Sri Pentyala Sambasiva Rao has made an agreement with the dealer Sri B.Ch.Venkateswarlu that the freight charges for transporting 33 bags of rice from the said F.P. Shop to Bobbepalli village. Charge No.3: that the dealer is not distributing the E.C. to the cardholders at fixed quantities and fixed rates. With regard to the first two charges, based on the statement recorded by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and also the driver of the tractor-trailor, finding is recorded by the authorities that the stock of 16.50 quintals of seized rice is at the instance of the petitioner. With regard to the third charge that the petitioner was not distributing the commodities at fixed quantities and rates, finding is recorded that 21 cardholders of the village have given their statement to the enquiry officer that the petitioner was distributing Kerosene at Rs.10/- per liter instead of Rs.9.50/- per liter, as fixed. Although it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no discrepancy was found in the stock when the business premises of the petitioner was inspected, that by itself will not outweigh the evidence recorded in the enquiry proceedings. From the statement recorded in the enquiry against the petitioner, it is clearly proved that transportation of the rice was undertaken by the owner of the tractor-trailor only at the instance of the petitioner and the tractor-trailor was seized only about 300 meters from the business premises of the petitioner. When the driver of the said vehicle has categorically pleaded that the stock was loaded from the business premises of the petitioner, the said evidence of the driver can conveniently be taken into account to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. It is to be noted that the order of the appellate authority in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2002 is confined to the validity of confiscation of 44 Kgs. of rice seized from the business premises of the petitioner. The said order will not have any bearing on the issue whether the petitioner has diverted the stock to black market or not. The tractor-trailor was seized by conducting Panchanama and the stock was found to be P.D.S. rice and the statements recorded in the enquiry proceedings clearly reveal that the stock was loaded by the petitioner. The charges framed against the petitioner are proved beyond doubt and they are sufficient and form valid basis for canceling the authorization of the petitioner. The appellate and reviewing authorities, taking into account the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him and thereby upheld the order passed by the primary authority. In that view of the matter, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities, in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 7, 2010 MRR