IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:13644 of 2006 Between: B.Samuel John, S/o John, R/o.Jupudi Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector & Magistrate, Guntur. 2 The Joint Collector & Addl.District Magistrate, Guntur. 3 The Sub Collector, Tenali, Guntur District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GOLI RAMAKRISHNA For SRI SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 16.11.2004 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision Case No.28/2002-S7. Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Jupudi Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. In the year 2005, he was allotted 100 quintals of rice meant for distribution to the beneficiaries working under three Contractors, namely, Sri K.Singaiah, Sri Lakshmaiah and Sri B.Yesuratnam under Food For Work Scheme. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponnur, who received complaints against the petitioner in relation to distribution of food grains, submitted a report to respondent No.3. After considering the same, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before respondent No.3 on 19.11.2001 and submitted his written explanation. After considering the said explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.3 vide proceedings Rc.No.2401/2001/K, dated 28.02.2002 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop. Assailing the said proceedings, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2, who after considering the same dismissed the said appeal by his order, dated 09.10.2002. The petitioner later filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 and the said revision petition was dismissed by his order, dated 16.11.2004. After almost 1½ years of dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri Goli Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.3 framed the following charge: “that he being the F.P. Shop dealer of the village he has distributed 100 Qtls. of FFW Rice to the 3 Contractors instead of working labour and thereby he violated instructions issued regarding distribution of FFW Rice and condition No.11 of Authorisation issued under A.P.S.C.(RDCS), 1973.” In his explanation, the petitioner stated that on 22nd October, 2005, Sri Ramesh A.E. (R&B), Ponnur told the petitioner that he will send three Contractors with coupons and to deliver the Food For Work Rice to them; that on the same day, the Contractors came to him with ten coolies and showed 5 kgs coupons numbering 2000 and a copy of list of coolies; that when the petitioner questioned, they replied that coolies were working at Machavaram and Intur Villages and it is difficult for them to come to the fair price shop to take delivery of rice from him and that they are instructed to take delivery of rice by the Assistant Engineer (R&B). The petitioner further explained that he has taken coupons and attendance from them and delivered 100 quintals of rice to them and that it is only on the instructions of the A.E., that the petitioner delivered the rice to the Contractors. Having considered the said explanation, respondent No.3 held that the petitioner being the fair price shop dealer of the Village is bound to follow the Government instructions and should not have obliged an Officer contrary to the procedure and that the explanation of the petitioner was not convincing and it is an after thought. On the said premise, the explanation of the petitioner was rejected and his dealership was terminated. Respondent No.2 in his order passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner held that as per the instructions given to the fair price shop dealers, they shall deliver rice meant for Food For Work to the beneficiaries on receipt of coupons from them and obtain signatures or thumb impressions and maintain proper accounts and that the record revealed that the petitioner committed a grave irregularity by delivering the rice directly to the Contractors. On the strength of the said reasoning, respondent No.2 affirmed the order of respondent No.3 and on a similar process of reasoning, respondent No.1 also confirmed the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 2. Having carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire action is taken on the basis of the alleged report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, a copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to file any material to show that he has raised this ground of non-supply of report either before the appellate authority or before the revisional authority. The petitioner has not filed a copy of the grounds of appeal or revision in the writ petition. Even from the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner raised the said ground. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this ground, which falls in the realm of a disputed fact for the first time in this writ petition. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, is only concerned with the decision making process and not the merits of the decision and it will not sit as a Court of appeal (See Tata Cellular v. Union of India [1]). Having carefully considered the entire case, I find no illegality in the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 06.07.2006 is vacated and WPMP.No.16970 of 2006 is dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th MARCH, 2008 kvni [1] (1994) 6 SCC 651