THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15488 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings No.A.642/96 dated 6.3.1997 cancelling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, as confirmed by the second respondent-Joint Collector by proceedings dated 2.8.1997, and further confirmed by the first respondent-District Collector in proceedings dated 14.2.2000. It seems the petitioner was the fair price shop dealer of Nakkaladinne village, Chapadu mandal, Cuddapah district. In April 1996, an inspection was conducted and some irregularities as to ground balance etc., were detected. Thereafter, Crime No.27/96 was registered against the petitioner under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner was cancelled by order of the third respondent dated 6.3.1997. As many as five charges were framed against the petitioner. In nutshell, the charges relate to diverting of 65 bags of subsidy rice to black-market by violating condition No.1 of the Authorisation read with clause 16(4) and 4 of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent after elaborate consideration of the matter, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of third respondent and opined that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the third respondent dated 6.3.1997. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner carried the matter in revision before the first respondent. The first respondent also after elaborate consideration of the matter, dismissed the revision by confirming the orders passed by the third respondent as confirmed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Absolutely, no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned orders. All the orders would indicate that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation tenable under law. Therefore, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the petitioner diverted 65 bags of subsidy rice to the black-market. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, this will not preclude the authorities from taking any action after the 6A proceedings are concluded as per law. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 7.8.2006 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15488 of 2000 7.8.2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15488 of 2000 Dated: 7th August, 2006 Between: S.Nagi Reddy .. Petitioner and The District Collector, Cuddapah, Cuddapah district & others. .. Respondents