IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 1217 of 2005 Between: Bathula Eswaramma, W/o. Tirupataiah, Varadhapuram Village, Mattampalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. E2/1842/2004, dt. 18-12-2004 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequentially set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1217 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is authorised Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer of Varadapuram village, Mattampalli Mandal in Nalgonda District. By proceedings, dated 28.06.2004, respondent suspended authorisation on the ground that 200 quintals of Food For Work (FFW) rice allotted to petitioner was diverted unauthorisedly. Thereafter, respondent issued show cause notice, dated 02.07.2004 calling upon petitioner to explain as to why authorisation should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted explanation. Considering the explanation, by impugned proceedings dated 18.12.2004, respondent cancelled the authorisation recording a ﬁnding that petitioner contravened conditions of Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (Control Order, for brevity). This order is assailed in the writ petition as illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that distribution of FFW rice by an FPS dealer is not governed by Control Order, and therefore, for alleged diversion of FFW rice, it is not competent for the respondent to cancel authorisation. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that even though the rice was meant for FFW, the same have to be distributed by FPS dealer in accordance with the instructions issued by competent authority, any contravention in such distribution would attract provisions of Control Order. He placed reliance on an unreported Judgment in Shaik Ramu v Government of Andhra Pradesh (WP.No.7853 of 2003, dated 28.12.2007). In the judgment relied on by learned Assistant Government Pleader, it is laid down as under. On a combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the rice being a scheduled commodity as deﬁned under the Control Order 1973 as well as 2001 Control Order is one of the items meant for distribution to the consumers and the authorized dealers are bound to distribute the same either under PDS or FFWS in compliance with the instructions of the appointing authority. Hence, in the event of the authorized dealer indulging in misappropriation of such commodity, the authorization is liable for suspension or cancellation. Precisely, the same was done by the 1st respondent after recording a ﬁnding that the petitioner had indulged in diversion of rice meant for FFWS. Admittedly, the said order was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conducting an enquiry following due process of law. Following the above decision, this Court holds that the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.10.2008 pln ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda Dist. 2. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, A.P.High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 3. Two CD copies.