THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2644 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of Vasudevapatnam-II Village, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District. In this writ petition, he has questioned order, dated 30.04.2005 passed in Rc.No.365/2004 F, by which, the third respondent/primary authority - Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District, has cancelled the fair price shop authorisation granted to him. As against the same, the petitioner filed appeal and also revision before the second and first respondents/appellate and revisional authorities – Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam and District Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam, respectively, who in turn, by orders, dated 25.03.2006 and 15.01.2007 in D.Dis.145/2006S.2 and D.Dis.No.755/2006/S2 respectively, dismissed the same. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar and Mandal Revenue Inspector inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner on 20.06.2004 and found that he has misused 733.94 quintals of Food For Work Programme rice pertaining to the Fair Price Shops of Vasudevapatnam-II and Krishnamvalasa, for which, he was in-charge. Based on the report of the fourth respondent - Tahsildar, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District, four charges were framed against the petitioner. Alleging that there is a variation in the stocks, there was no explanation with regard to variation in respect of 733.94 quintals of rice, to cover up the irregularities, he has produced false receipts before the authorities and he has diverted the stock of 733.94 quintals of rice to the black market etc., the petitioner was issued show cause notice, dated 12.03.2005, for which, he submitted explanation on 28.03.2005 to the third respondent, who in turn, by recording a finding that on consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, there is no valid reason in it in respect of the alleged variations, the documents produced by him are not correct and he has produced false receipts to cover up the irregularities, has cancelled the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner by order, dated 30.04.2005 passed in Rc.No.365/2004 F. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the second respondent as provided under Clause 20(1)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the Control Order’). The second respondent having considered the appeal, by order, dated 25.03.2006 passed in D.Dis.145/2006S.2 dismissed the same by confirming the order of the third respondent. Further, the matter was carried in revision before the first respondent, who in turn, has also rejected the revision filed by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the second respondent. In this writ petition, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though valid explanation was filed by the petitioner explaining the variations, the third respondent passed the impugned order cancelling his fair price shop authorisation. It is submitted that the rice supplied under the Food For Work programme is not the commodity supplied as per the provisions of the Control Order, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated the conditions of authorisation granted to him and also Clause 19 of the Control Order. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that the primary authority has considered the explanation of the petitioner, recorded valid adverse findings against him, and passed cancellation order, which is also confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and perused the orders passed by the primary, appellate and revisional authorities. From a perusal of the orders, it is clear that there is no valid explanation offered by the petitioner for the huge variations found by the inspecting authorities at the time of inspection. Even though the petitioner produced certain documents, they were not tallied with the registers as such documentary evidence produced by him was not accepted by recording valid reasons. With regard to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rice which was supplied under Food For Work Programme is not the commodity supplied under the provisions of the Control Order, it is to be noted that once the petitioner has accepted the supplies, it is his obligation to distribute the same as per the vouchers for the works executed by the authorities, as such, it is not open to the petitioner to plead that the alleged variations in the rice supplied under Food For Work Programme is no ground to cancel the fair price shop authorisation granted under the provisions of the Control Order. In that view of the matter, I do not find any force in the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, in view of the findings recorded by all the authorities in the absence of valid explanation offered by the petitioner with regard to the huge variations noticed by the inspecting authorities, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the primary authority cancelling his fair price shop authorisation, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, so as to interfere with the same in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni