HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3348 of 2008 Date : 18.08.2011 Between : G. Chinna Reddappa. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3348 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in Rekkalakondapalle village of Peddamandyam Mandal in Chittoor District. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner/dealer on the allegations that he has mis-used 4.98 quintals of rice, was selling kerosene at Rs.3.50 per litre instead of Rs.3/- and he was found transporting 110 litres of blue kerosene in a private jeep on 17.07.1997 at 9 p.m., he was issuing lesser quantity of rice to the cardholders against the norms notified by the Government and was keeping the shop open only for two or three hours, causing inconvenience to the consumers. After calling for the explanation of petitioner and considering the same, the primary authority has cancelled his authorization by an order, dated 15.02.1998, passed in Proceedings D.Dis.No.G/6152/97, as against which, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal and even the appellate authority, by order dated 21.12.1998, passed in Proceedings No.S1/548/98, confirmed the order of cancellation. Further revision was also filed by the petitioner before the Collector, but he was unsuccessful. Hence, this writ petition. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the impugned order is not preceded by any show cause notice for cancellation. It is represented that show cause notice was issued only at the stage of suspension, but no separate notice is issued before cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. In the impugned order itself, there is a reference to the proceedings, dated 11th August 1997, issued in Proceedings Roc.G/6152/97, and a copy of the said show cause notice is also filed by the petitioner himself. A reading of paragraph 2 of the said show cause notice makes it clear that the petitioner was called upon to file his explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled by forfeiting the security deposit to the Government. In view of the show cause notice, dated 11th August 1997, issued in Proceedings Roc.G/6152/97, it cannot be said that the impugned order is not preceded by any show cause notice. Further, it is to be seen that pursuant to the show cause notice of cancellation, dated 11th August 1997, the petitioner has filed his explanation on 22nd of September 1997 and by considering the explanation offered by the petitioner and by recording a finding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved, the impugned order of cancellation is passed, and even the appellate and revisional authorities have confirmed the same. A perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner, which are proved in the inquiry, shows that the same are very serious charges, as the petitioner is diverting the rice to be distributed to the cardholders and also selling the kerosene in the market for higher price. In view of the findings recorded by the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, and as no other argument is advanced by the petitioner, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of cancellation. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th August 2011 ajr