THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.1386 OF 2007 DT.18.11.2010 Between: M.Devender …………Petitioner Vs. The District Collector and two others. …………………..Respondents. O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed to declare the cancellation of authorisation of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop of Medinipur Village, by orders of the third respondent in proceedings No.B/1386/2005, dated 28.10.2005, confirmed in appeal by the second respondent in case No.CSA/42/A/2005, dated 18.02.2006 and by the first respondent-District Collector, Medak District in case No.CSA/6/Rev/2006, dated 28.11.2006 as illegal. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapak inspected the shop of the petitioner on 26.05.2005 and found that the petitioner did not account for 250-86 quintals of rice meant for Food For Work. A quantity of 1262.00 quintals of rice of FFW scheme was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner distributed 602.34 quintals of rice while collecting the coupons and a quantity of 408.84 quintals was adjusted for public distribution system (PDS). The Mandal Revenue Officer on physical verification of the stocks found shortage of 250.86 quintals of rice as not available in the shop, out of which, 20.00 quintals of rice was found spoiled and thrown behind the Gram Panchayat building, without the permission of the concerned authorities. On the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the said effect, the third respondent issued a memo No.B/1386/2005, dated 08.08.2005 to the petitioner with the following charges: 1) “That the dealer misused the FFW rice to a quantity of 250-86 quintals; 2) That the dealer has thrown the spoiled rice with taking into the notice of the higher authorities; 3) That he contravened the condition of authorisation under Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2001.” The petitioner submitted an explanation, dated 23.07.2005 to the show cause notice. While admitting that he received 1262.00 quintals of rice, he stated that a quantity of 112.87 quintals of rice was handed over to the Contractor, namely, Sanjeev Reddy and 38.40 quintals of rice to Ramesh Reddy, as per the oral instructions of the M.P.D.O., Kondapak, a quantity of 20.00 quintals of rice was spoiled and the balance of 79.59 quintals of rice was available in the premises of the fair price shop. He further stated that there was no authorisation for the stock and sought for dropping of the proposed action. The third respondent considered the matter after due notice to the petitioner. On the admission made by the petitioner that he had thrown 20.00 quintals of spoiled rice and that he delivered rice to the contractor without obtaining coupons, the third respondent holding that the petitioner contravened the provisions and conditions of Public Distribution System of 2001, cancelled the authorisation by orders, dated 28.10.2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the second respondent and in the appeal, he sought to contend hat he delivered a quantity of 134.10 kgs to the Contractor as per the directions of M.P.D.O., and the balance was kept in the Panchayat Office premises, on the directions of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The appellate authority having noticed that the delivery of rice to the contractor was made without obtaining coupons and some rice was also thrown out without permission and holding that the rice which was meant for FFW was issued without coupons, dismissed the appeal by orders, dated 18.02.2006. On a further revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said orders, the first respondent reached the same conclusion and dismissed the revision by orders, dated 28.11.2006. Heard the learned counsel representing both the parties. The learned counsel Sri B.Lingaiah Yadav appearing for the petitioner contends that there was no variation in the stock. The inspecting staff did not properly verify the stock. According to him, a quantity of 79.59 quintals of rice was stored in the S.C. Community Hall attached to the Gram Panchayat and the inspecting staff did not take the said stock into account. He further contends that the petitioner delivered quantity of 151.27 quintals of rice to the Contractor on the instructions of M.P.D.O., thus, according to him, factually there was no variation. He therefore contends that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. The learned Government Pleader contends that the stock was meant for the labourers to be distributed under the Food For Work Scheme. The petitioner should distribute rice only against the coupons and not otherwise. The inspecting staff inspected the shop and physically verified the stock and only after conducting panchanama, they found the shortage. He further contends that the respondents rightly appreciated the facts and the same are not liable to be interfered with. It is not in dispute that the rice was meant for Food For Work Scheme and that the same should be distributed only against the coupons. The petitioner does not dispute that the stock was not distributed against the coupons, but he contends that he was forced to deliver the quantity of 151.27 quintals of rice to the Contractors on the oral instructions of M.P.D.O. I am of the view that the said contentions cannot be accepted and in view of the fact that no material has been placed to show that he acted on the oral instructions of the said Officer. If it was true, the petitioner could have insisted for an enquiry by calling the said officers before the respondents. On the other hand, the respondents passed orders only on the admission made by the petitioner that he had delivered rice to the contractors without obtaining coupons. The learned counsel however seeks to justify by stating that a quantity of 79.59 quintals of rice was stored in the S.C. Community Hall and the same was not verified by the inspecting staff. Admittedly, the said Community Hall is not an authorised place for keeping the stock. Further, the inspecting staff conducted physical verification and noted the stock under a panchanama. The petitioner did not even inform the inspecting officers that the stock was available in the said community hall. On the other hand, even in his explanation, dated 23.07.2005, he pleaded that the entire stock was available only in the shop but not in the Community Hall. The respondents therefore rightly disbelieved the explanation of the petitioner. On a thorough consideration of the material, I am of the view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. There are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI J., Dt.18.11.2010 tjs