HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5401 of 2008 Dated:15.09.2010 Between: B.Gopal Reddy. …..Petitioner And The Collector, Mahabubnagar District & others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5401 of 2008 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of cancellation of authorization granted to him under the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, vide proceedings, dated 27.06.2007, issued in Proceedings No.F/440/2007, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. Petitioner was granted authorization for distribution of essential commodities for shop No.3 of Kethapally village of Pangal Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. On the allegation that he diverted 5.42 quintals of Indiramma housing rice and stored some sona masuri rice and 50 kgs of tamarind in the premises of the fair price shop without permission of the authorities, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of his authorization, by issuing a show cause notice, dated 18.05.2007, issued in Proceedings No.F/440/2007. The petitioner has filed a detailed explanation to the said show cause notice, on 23.05.2007, denying the allegations of diversion of rice and stated that out of 52 quintals of PDS rice, he has distributed 48 quintals to the cardholders and the remaining rice is available in the shop. In the explanation, the petitioner also referred to the inquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Pangal, in the village on 29th March 2007. The primary authority i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order, dated 27th June 2007, issued in proceedings No.F/440/2007, without recording any findings on the allegations made against the petitioner with reference to the explanation offered by him, merely by recording a finding that the explanation is examined and found not convincing, has ordered for cancellation of authorization. Even the appellate authority has rejected the appeal mainly basing on registration of case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act against the Van bearing No.AP-21-T-9106, for transporting 5.42 quintals of Government rice. The revisional authority- District Collector has recorded a finding to the effect that when he visited the village, number of people have complained against the petitioner and that the petitioner is also a landlord, having 30 acres of land. In the order of the Collector, a finding is recorded that there was a complaint against the petitioner that under the guise of political influence, he is grabbing the lands belonging to poor people. Recording a finding that if such person is appointed, he will exploit the dealership for distribution of essential commodities and by further recording a finding that as an influenced person, he might motivate the witnesses to speak in his favour in the inquiry, confirmed the order of the primary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority. When the matter came up for hearing on last occasion, it was adjourned to produce the copy of the show cause notice and explanation offered by the petitioner. In the show cause notice, an allegation was made against the petitioner that he indulged in diversion of Government rice. In the explanation offered by the petitioner, he denied the same and also relied on the inquiry proceedings of the Tahsildar in the village on 29th of March 2007. In view of the provisions under the Control Order 2001, the primary authority is empowered to vary, amend or cancel the authorization for reasons to be recorded in writing. Inspite of filing of explanation by the petitioner, in this case, it appears that without recording any finding on the allegation vis-à-vis the explanation offered by the petitioner, merely recording a finding that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not convincing, the order of cancellation was passed. As much as the further appellate and revisional authorities also travelled beyond the allegations made in the show cause notice and confirmed the orders of cancellation, I deem it is a fit case to reconsider the matter by setting aside the orders of cancellation, dated 27th June 2007, issued in Proceedings No.F/440/2007, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of cancellation, dated 27.06.2007, issued in Proceedings No.F/440/2007, and the order of the Joint Collector, dated 19.10.2007, passed in Case No.CS1(a)/468/2007 and the order of the Collector, dated 28.02.2008, passed in Case No.CS1(a)/779/2007, are set aside, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afresh, independently, by considering the explanation offered by the petitioner to the show cause notice, dated 18.05.2007, and by giving an opportunity of hearing to him. Respondent No.3 is further directed to consider the matter independently, without being influenced by any of the instructions issued by the 1st respondent in the letter, dated 30th April 2007 and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending passing of appropriate orders, the existing temporary arrangements shall be continued. Writ petition is allowed subject to the above directions. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th September 2010. ajr